There was an article by a bloke called Sean Thomas, formerly of these parts, on Unherd today. Not sure whether you’ve seen it but you may find it interesting.
There is?! I love that guy’s work. Always witty, insightful, articulate and debonair. I’ll check it out now. Ta
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
The Queen Mother was Scottish. Not sure why we would go back further than that, TBH.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
No qualms with data collection if it's an explicit decision and trade.
The issue is major databases when no such decision has been made. Though what can be done about it I don't know, GDPR was such a crap way of dealing with it but I've not seen anything better.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
The Queen Mother was a daughter of a Scottish Earl.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
I had a text earlier from Bradford NHS. An earlier slot for my second jab? No. Just to advise me of a change of venue as my original vaccination centre is no longer supplying AZ.
You should be able to bring the date forward if you manage your booking online, as I advised yesterday. I advanced mine by three weeks!
Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
Although William Robert is one possible solution to the numbering problem. We've not had a double named monarch before, but it has been done elsewhere in Europe (e.g. the current King of the Netherlands.)
William also has three middle names: Arthur, Philip and Louis...
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
The Queen Mother was a daughter of a Scottish Earl.
But she doesn't really count as part of the ancestral line for the monarchs though does she?
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
Ha ha - yes, it would look like he was trying to disguise himself as a more popular member of the family.
Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.
Yet again we are back to hospitalisations in the young! Your daily reminder that this data is not stratified by underlying health conditions, and thus is largely meaningless given those with UHC have already been jabbed!
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
The Queen Mother was a daughter of a Scottish Earl.
But she doesn't really count as part of the ancestral line for the monarchs though does she?
She might do if you go back far enough! As is often the case with these very old aristocratic families.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
If you can identify as a female, why can't you identify as an inanimate object?
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
The UK was a Republic long before the 1707 Act of Union...
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
Try buying a house with cash without an audit trail backed up by the banking system, or even a new car and you won't get very far.
That is because of legislation.
Wouldn't it be better to be getting rid of laws and regulations, rather than adding to them?
Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.
Well indeed. The numbering of the English Kings really ought to start from Athelstan, but it's a bit too much of a faff to go back and correct it now. A bit like with the Popes, where there are at least one too many Johns, I seem to recall...
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
No qualms with data collection if it's an explicit decision and trade.
The issue is major databases when no such decision has been made. Though what can be done about it I don't know, GDPR was such a crap way of dealing with it but I've not seen anything better.
That's a fair point: there are certain services which are essential, and which one cannot opt out from. There should be a delineation between where people choose products (knowing they are trading privacy for convenience) and where they cannot.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Does seem slightly odd when one remembers Scottish history (and English and Irish and Welsh, where Charles I was concerned). But then when one thinks of William and Yorkshire ...
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
But you were wrong, that is the tradition.
James II and VII (or James VII and II) was King of England and King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom.
HMQ is Queen of the United Kingdom, not Queen of England or Queen of Scotland.
So how would the next King James be numbered? The English numeral (James III) or the higher numeral (James VIII)? You are arguing that he would be known as James VIII.
I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?
As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
The Queen Mother was a daughter of a Scottish Earl.
I am sure I have read accounts which stated that her real father was far more humble than an Earl.
All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.
I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.
Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box. Voter: What's your mandate? Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet. Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power? Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created] Voter: Shocking Me: Time for a change Voter - yes definitely.
Voter #2 [on the doorstep] Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change Voter: yes definitely
Voter #3 [same thing]
Voter #4 Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change Voter: Don't give me that rubbish. Me: Are you going to vote? Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question. Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said. Voter: Impertinent. I avoided giving the V sign.
Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.
66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.
Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.
Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?
Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.
If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
Why should we accept we have no privacy?
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
Everything we do leaves a digital footprint, you dont have to let the footprints merge into a trackable path though you can isolate each footprint so the trail deadends
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
But you were wrong, that is the tradition.
James II and VII (or James VII and II) was King of England and King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom.
HMQ is Queen of the United Kingdom, not Queen of England or Queen of Scotland.
So how would the next King James be numbered? The English numeral (James III) or the higher numeral (James VIII)? You are arguing that he would be known as James VIII.
I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?
As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
Unless there's a constitutional change a future James would be King James VIII of the United Kingdom.
Not James III of England. There is no such think as the King of England anymore, as much as Americans and HYUFD seem to think that still exists.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.
Should have kept going with epithets and nicknames. Even when people don't remember what the nickname part meant it makes it easier, like William Rufus. And if all the Henrys had such nicknames it'd save time on remembering which one they were and what they were known for - Henry the Fat Bigamist for instance.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
Although William Robert is one possible solution to the numbering problem. We've not had a double named monarch before, but it has been done elsewhere in Europe (e.g. the current King of the Netherlands.)
William also has three middle names: Arthur, Philip and Louis...
It'd be amusing if he took any of those quite honestly. More immediately, Charles might not be Charles.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.
Well indeed. The numbering of the English Kings really ought to start from Athelstan, but it's a bit too much of a faff to go back and correct it now. A bit like with the Popes, where there are at least one too many Johns, I seem to recall...
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
Queen Caroline, surely?
I recently read a book on the Popes, and given all the various antipopes, and a few who may not have existed, it's a bit hard to track. I'm pretty sure a couple were given the same name and regnal number as another by mistake, or mistakenly counted a 'fake' pope when numbering themselves.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
The UK was a Republic long before the 1707 Act of Union...
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
But you were wrong, that is the tradition.
James II and VII (or James VII and II) was King of England and King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom.
HMQ is Queen of the United Kingdom, not Queen of England or Queen of Scotland.
So how would the next King James be numbered? The English numeral (James III) or the higher numeral (James VIII)? You are arguing that he would be known as James VIII.
I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?
As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
Would Acts of Parliament stand in for nonexistent pillar boxes pre-Rowland Hill? Wiki says for instance that Sailor Bill's- if I understand things correctly - first act was the Regency Act 1830 = 1 Will.4 c.2.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
The UK was a Republic long before the 1707 Act of Union...
The UK didn't exist until 1801.
IT, or an earlier variant, did during the Cromwellian conquest 1650-1660. Not a Kingdom obviously (edit) so you are still right!
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
Although William Robert is one possible solution to the numbering problem. We've not had a double named monarch before, but it has been done elsewhere in Europe (e.g. the current King of the Netherlands.)
William also has three middle names: Arthur, Philip and Louis...
It'd be amusing if he took any of those quite honestly. More immediately, Charles might not be Charles.
Are these new outbreaks in the several towns partly connected to mismanagement, apart from the obvious fact that travel from and to India should have been frozen sooner? Did the latter have any connection to our negotiations over a trade deal with India?
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
Try buying a house with cash without an audit trail backed up by the banking system, or even a new car and you won't get very far.
That is because of legislation.
Wouldn't it be better to be getting rid of laws and regulations, rather than adding to them?
Probably depends to what extent the UK wants to be the money laundering capital of the world. As far as I can tell we want to be that capital for ex overseas government officials and the already rich but not so keen for smaller time Joe Public Criminals.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
You can't get much more Scottish than having a Scottish mother, a father who was King of Scotland and being Queen of Scotland yourself. HM is a direct descendent of James VI of Scotland who united the crowns in 1603 and of course was the son of Mary Queen of Scots - who was herself descended from both the English and the Scots royal families.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.
Well indeed. The numbering of the English Kings really ought to start from Athelstan, but it's a bit too much of a faff to go back and correct it now. A bit like with the Popes, where there are at least one too many Johns, I seem to recall...
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
Queen Caroline, surely?
I recently read a book on the Popes, and given all the various antipopes, and a few who may not have existed, it's a bit hard to track. I'm pretty sure a couple were given the same name and regnal number as another by mistake, or mistakenly counted a 'fake' pope when numbering themselves.
Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.
Well indeed. The numbering of the English Kings really ought to start from Athelstan, but it's a bit too much of a faff to go back and correct it now. A bit like with the Popes, where there are at least one too many Johns, I seem to recall...
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George". I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten. It's either Charles or ridicule.
Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
Queen Caroline, surely?
I recently read a book on the Popes, and given all the various antipopes, and a few who may not have existed, it's a bit hard to track. I'm pretty sure a couple were given the same name and regnal number as another by mistake, or mistakenly counted a 'fake' pope when numbering themselves.
yet they all shit in the woods.
That was to get out of Rome no doubt, which apparently was quite the awful and deadly place to live, especially in summer.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
You can use Tor to access pb, you just need to let it use Javascript.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
But you were wrong, that is the tradition.
James II and VII (or James VII and II) was King of England and King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom.
HMQ is Queen of the United Kingdom, not Queen of England or Queen of Scotland.
So how would the next King James be numbered? The English numeral (James III) or the higher numeral (James VIII)? You are arguing that he would be known as James VIII.
I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?
As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
Would Acts of Parliament stand in for nonexistent pillar boxes pre-Rowland Hill? Wiki says for instance that Sailor Bill's- if I understand things correctly - first act was the Regency Act 1830 = 1 Will.4 c.2.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
Just renewed my CAR with LV £350 EXCESS fully comp £179 PER YEAR.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
Just renewed my CAR with LV £350 EXCESS fully comp £179 PER YEAR.
Hello TRUMP, did you need to RANDOMLY shout certain WORDS? 😉
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
You can use Tor to access pb, you just need to let it use Javascript.
well thats a vulnerability in itself and as I am confident my pb identity is isolated from all my other identities its safer to access pb normally and not risk forgetting to turn js off for other sites
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
All of that behaviour has probably put you on a watch list, and the intelligence services know more about your movements than those of the rest of us put together.
Covid "local lockdowns" - the thing about this Government on/off guidance is, notwithstanding the U-turn/mixed messaging, it was incredibly cack-handedly stupid if they really have ambitions/intentions to proceed with the road map as planned. Most people, regardless of their general position, understand that there will continue to be outbreaks of infection to a lesser or greater extent over the next few months. However, those in favour of continuing with the roadmap understand that the vaccines provide an opportunity to manage through sensible use of health resources on the basis there is no real chance of serious shortfalls in NHS provision.
The whole roadmap blows apart if you are continuing to implement (whether through "guidance" or otherwise) measures of local restrictions in response to every little sign of a "hotspot". The point of the vaccinations of the old and vulnerable in particular, is it shouldn't develop into anything worse. By all means put out sensible warnings highlighting that outbreaks are occurring and let people make their own personal decisions. But that's it. Otherwise you're just heading back to the whole country being in "local lockdown" and increasing demands from businesses and local authorities for ongoing government support to mitigate the impacts. And the cycle is never broken.
I'm sure, therefore, that it can only have been put forward by somebody pushing an alternative agenda of delaying June 21st.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
All of that behaviour has probably put you on a watch list, and the intelligence services know more about your movements than those of the rest of us put together.
That black car parked just along the road from his house?
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
Just renewed my CAR with LV £350 EXCESS fully comp £179 PER YEAR.
Hello TRUMP, did you need to RANDOMLY shout certain WORDS? 😉
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
All of that behaviour has probably put you on a watch list, and the intelligence services know more about your movements than those of the rest of us put together.
I was already on watch lists anyway from when I lived with a girl that was an irish republican. I know this because it was early 90's we had a landline and they fucked up bugging us and only the extension phone rang when I picked it up I got a ring tone which was answered with "hello operations". Sort of a giveaway. However frankly if I am on a watch list they are wasting man hours on me and the more they have to do that the less time they have to keep people that are actually a risk under surveillance. Enough like me they have to actually start doing their jobs rather than suspecting people who won't give all their data to the state are bad guys
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
Why is it that in Michigan?
Ridiculous regulations.
Which push up the cost of insurance.
Which then result in large numbers (around one-in-five) of vehicles on the road without insurance.
Which means that everyone else's rates rise because if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, then your insurance is going to be paying.
"Overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived BMPC and MBCs."
Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
Try buying a house with cash without an audit trail backed up by the banking system, or even a new car and you won't get very far.
That is because of legislation.
Wouldn't it be better to be getting rid of laws and regulations, rather than adding to them?
Probably depends to what extent the UK wants to be the money laundering capital of the world. As far as I can tell we want to be that capital for ex overseas government officials and the already rich but not so keen for smaller time Joe Public Criminals.
Typical. It is always the little guy who gets squeezed out.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
Why is it that in Michigan?
Ridiculous regulations.
Which push up the cost of insurance.
Which then result in large numbers (around one-in-five) of vehicles on the road without insurance.
Which means that everyone else's rates rise because if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, then your insurance is going to be paying.
Presumably also a factor is that the USA's litigous system is even worse than our own?
Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.
Yet again we are back to hospitalisations in the young! Your daily reminder that this data is not stratified by underlying health conditions, and thus is largely meaningless given those with UHC have already been jabbed!
I bore even myself making this point.
The ICNARC data (for ICU admissions) is explicitly split by eligibility for vaccine group - for those in Groups 1-4, Groups 5-9, and outside of any vulnerability group (Phase 2)
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
All of that behaviour has probably put you on a watch list, and the intelligence services know more about your movements than those of the rest of us put together.
That black car parked just along the road from his house?
See this I see is the problem, we lambasted the DDR for the stasi and yet reasonable people who did so are saying and accepting I should be under suspicion and monitored because I don't let the state track everywhere I go, everything I buy and everyone I talk to.....Is it just me that finds this a level of intrusion the stasi could only dream of?
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
Why is it that in Michigan?
Ridiculous regulations.
Which push up the cost of insurance.
Which then result in large numbers (around one-in-five) of vehicles on the road without insurance.
Which means that everyone else's rates rise because if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, then your insurance is going to be paying.
Presumably also a factor is that the USA's litigous system is even worse than our own?
It is certainly the case that medical indemnity insurance varies tremendously from State to state. Sometimes to the point that services are not cost effective in some states. Neonatal paediatrics in California is so litigious that it is impossible to staff.
chancellor Rishi Sunak is to set out plans to block companies from listing on the London Stock Exchange on national security grounds as government concerns mount about “dirty money” in British financial markets
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
The decision hasn't been made yet, so the more information now the better.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
Robert's business depends on him knowing if you're a crap driver, which some people might find embarrassing.
I suspect that the tracking data itself isn't actually the valuable but - you could probably just give people an empty plastic box with a light in and the effects would be the same.
I'd expect that the two biggest effects are that people who think insurance companies won't be happy with their driving will avoid a company that fits black boxes (I would fit in this category, as I suspect would Dura Ace), and people who think they are being tracked drive more gently.
RCS may be able to confirm, but I suspect that matching driving style as recorded by black boxes to probably of making a claim is actually quite difficult. There was an interesting effect round here in the first lockdown where because the roads were so empty traffic speeds became very high (I found myself having crept up to 100mph on an A road with a 50mph limit on my way to work one morning, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one). According to my aquantance in the local fire service they were quite concerned that they were going to have to deal with a resulting spate of very high energy collisions. They actually saw almost none, even in proportion to the traffic on the roads - they concluded after a certain amount of head scratching that pretty much everyone left on the roads was self selectingly good enough to drive at the speeds they were achieving. I'm not sure how you'd calculate that sort of thing into the black box data analysis...
Yet again we are back to hospitalisations in the young! Your daily reminder that this data is not stratified by underlying health conditions, and thus is largely meaningless given those with UHC have already been jabbed!
I bore even myself making this point.
The ICNARC data (for ICU admissions) is explicitly split by eligibility for vaccine group - for those in Groups 1-4, Groups 5-9, and outside of any vulnerability group (Phase 2)
Those in Phase 2 have not already been jabbed.
Sure but the point I’m making is that the 50,000 hospitalisations you quotes will include those with UHC. I have yet to find a decent source that shows hospitalisations stratified by both age and UHC for granular age cohorts. Deaths are so stratified under NHS data, but I’ve not seen anything that shows hospitalisations in that way.
The death was a tragedy. The act was a crime. The murderer has been rightfully convicted and jailed
But the victim was not a hero, nor a saint
Hero is a word which is already pretty broadly applied, I don't think most mind it even being applied to, say, sporting heroes, so in general as a word it has lost its impact a bit in any case.
Martyr, if used, is a more interesting one. I'm sure I recall a piece on Unherd, not entirely surprisingly, on that point, I think arguing it can undermine status as a victim, make the icon eclipse the person, but it was a bit rambly if memory serves.
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
I’m not sure how joined up a lot of this is. I too find the trial events challenging, because I don’t want to have to get a Covid test in the days leading up to going to a football match. I want to be able to go on the off chance. I am sure things have been learnt, but a lot of what will come out is bleeding obvious. If you test everyone before they go then of course few if any new cases will happen. I believe the government is heading to an advice not laws mode, not unlike the current situation in the Indian (sorry april02...) variant hot spots. This is going to challenge some, who will hate people who discard masks at the first possible moment (like me).
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
Very good question - Ascot is only a few days before 21 June anyway.
The Evening Standard tonight was hinting that the England vs Scotland game at Wembley would be a ‘test event’ with a full crowd. I suspect it’s just a way of the government circumnavigating its own rules - as I predicted many times on here!
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
The decision hasn't been made yet, so the more information now the better.
A pilot event on June 15-19, when the decision is set to be taken on June 14?
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
I’m not sure how joined up a lot of this is. I too find the trial events challenging, because I don’t want to have to get a Covid test in the days leading up to going to a football match. I want to be able to go on the off chance. I am sure things have been learnt, but a lot of what will come out is bleeding obvious. If you test everyone before they go then of course few if any new cases will happen. I believe the government is heading to an advice not laws mode, not unlike the current situation in the Indian (sorry april02...) variant hot spots. This is going to challenge some, who will hate people who discard masks at the first possible moment (like me).
No test was required at the footy on Sunday, though interestingly there were sniffer dogs. I have never seen these at a match. Drugs, bombs or covid? Only the latter makes sense.
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
The decision hasn't been made yet, so the more information now the better.
A pilot event on June 15-19, when the decision is set to be taken on June 14?
Think of it as a decision tree.
If 14 June says OK to lift restrictions Then Pilot is redundant, but allowed more people to attend events early anyway. Else Pilot information can be used to put in place alternative restictions, looser than today but not quite no restrictions.
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
I’m not sure how joined up a lot of this is. I too find the trial events challenging, because I don’t want to have to get a Covid test in the days leading up to going to a football match. I want to be able to go on the off chance. I am sure things have been learnt, but a lot of what will come out is bleeding obvious. If you test everyone before they go then of course few if any new cases will happen. I believe the government is heading to an advice not laws mode, not unlike the current situation in the Indian (sorry april02...) variant hot spots. This is going to challenge some, who will hate people who discard masks at the first possible moment (like me).
No test was required at the footy on Sunday, though interestingly there were sniffer dogs. I have never seen these at a match. Drugs bombs or covid? Only the latter makes sense.
Because you were able to get past with your drugs and bombs?
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
Very good question - Ascot is only a few days before 21 June anyway.
The Evening Standard tonight was hinting that the England vs Scotland game at Wembley would be a ‘test event’ with a full crowd. I suspect it’s just a way of the government circumnavigating its own rules - as I predicted many times on here!
Not too late to change your name to AnaCassandrazina
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
I’m not sure how joined up a lot of this is. I too find the trial events challenging, because I don’t want to have to get a Covid test in the days leading up to going to a football match. I want to be able to go on the off chance. I am sure things have been learnt, but a lot of what will come out is bleeding obvious. If you test everyone before they go then of course few if any new cases will happen. I believe the government is heading to an advice not laws mode, not unlike the current situation in the Indian (sorry april02...) variant hot spots. This is going to challenge some, who will hate people who discard masks at the first possible moment (like me).
No test was required at the footy on Sunday, though interestingly there were sniffer dogs. I have never seen these at a match. Drugs bombs or covid? Only the latter makes sense.
That’s great to hear, and interesting in the context of dogs/Covid in the news in the last few days. Btw, very jealous of your cup win. In the 90’s it definitely felt like Leicester and Swindon were similar clubs, but our trajectories have been a bit different since...
Comments
I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
It's either Charles or ridicule.
The issue is major databases when no such decision has been made. Though what can be done about it I don't know, GDPR was such a crap way of dealing with it but I've not seen anything better.
If you live in an area with high rates of covid then take that into account when making decisions.
For example it might not be the best time to go for a curry in inner Bedford.
Think for yourselves and make your own decisions.
But don't have a tantrum afterwards.
They claimed he added: "If I was 80 I wouldn't care, I'd be more worried about the economy".
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-said-covid-only-24184724
Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1397277885749153795
William also has three middle names: Arthur, Philip and Louis...
I bore even myself making this point.
King Tampon I
Wouldn't it be better to be getting rid of laws and regulations, rather than adding to them?
(Unless you have an omniverous friend and the two of you compare the mass of your evacuations.)
I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?
As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
Not James III of England. There is no such think as the King of England anymore, as much as Americans and HYUFD seem to think that still exists.
Arthur: too Monty Python!
Could surprise us with Philip though...?
So we need the context of what he said and what else was said to be honest.
£350 EXCESS fully comp £179 PER YEAR.
@PoliticsForAlI
Police cars revolving lightFlag of Scotland | BREAKING: Nicola Sturgeon has abandoned her Zero Covid strategy
Via
@Telegraph
Overruled Devi Sridhar?
NYT thinks India deaths underreported, 1.6 million likely and 4.2 million possible.
The whole roadmap blows apart if you are continuing to implement (whether through "guidance" or otherwise) measures of local restrictions in response to every little sign of a "hotspot". The point of the vaccinations of the old and vulnerable in particular, is it shouldn't develop into anything worse. By all means put out sensible warnings highlighting that outbreaks are occurring and let people make their own personal decisions. But that's it. Otherwise you're just heading back to the whole country being in "local lockdown" and increasing demands from businesses and local authorities for ongoing government support to mitigate the impacts. And the cycle is never broken.
I'm sure, therefore, that it can only have been put forward by somebody pushing an alternative agenda of delaying June 21st.
Which push up the cost of insurance.
Which then result in large numbers (around one-in-five) of vehicles on the road without insurance.
Which means that everyone else's rates rise because if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, then your insurance is going to be paying.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_campaign=NGMT_USG_JC01_GL_Nature
The death was a tragedy. The act was a crime. The murderer has been rightfully convicted and jailed
But the victim was not a hero, nor a saint
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19
Those in Phase 2 have not already been jabbed.
Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).
But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
chancellor Rishi Sunak is to set out plans to block companies from listing on the London Stock Exchange on national security grounds as government concerns mount about “dirty money” in British financial markets
https://www.ft.com/content/4c5395b9-5c96-4ff3-87e0-53f0b7608eb4?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a via @financialtimes
I'd expect that the two biggest effects are that people who think insurance companies won't be happy with their driving will avoid a company that fits black boxes (I would fit in this category, as I suspect would Dura Ace), and people who think they are being tracked drive more gently.
RCS may be able to confirm, but I suspect that matching driving style as recorded by black boxes to probably of making a claim is actually quite difficult.
There was an interesting effect round here in the first lockdown where because the roads were so empty traffic speeds became very high (I found myself having crept up to 100mph on an A road with a 50mph limit on my way to work one morning, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one). According to my aquantance in the local fire service they were quite concerned that they were going to have to deal with a resulting spate of very high energy collisions. They actually saw almost none, even in proportion to the traffic on the roads - they concluded after a certain amount of head scratching that pretty much everyone left on the roads was self selectingly good enough to drive at the speeds they were achieving. I'm not sure how you'd calculate that sort of thing into the black box data analysis...
https://twitter.com/deanmthomson/status/1397169758907273216?s=21
tl:dr “more or less the same as English attitudes”, despite what the SNP would have you believe.
Martyr, if used, is a more interesting one. I'm sure I recall a piece on Unherd, not entirely surprisingly, on that point, I think arguing it can undermine status as a victim, make the icon eclipse the person, but it was a bit rambly if memory serves.
The Evening Standard tonight was hinting that the England vs Scotland game at Wembley would be a ‘test event’ with a full crowd. I suspect it’s just a way of the government circumnavigating its own rules - as I predicted many times on here!
If 14 June says OK to lift restrictions
Then Pilot is redundant, but allowed more people to attend events early anyway.
Else Pilot information can be used to put in place alternative restictions, looser than today but not quite no restrictions.
In either scenario the pilot was useful.