Maybe we'll get a "night of long knives" next where Gove, Sunak, Rabb and Priti all get sacked?
Do you think that would improve Labours chances. Boris could sack all of them and replace all of them with unknowns and Labour would still be struggling.
Most of your predictions came true except... why did he mostly spare Rishi? Has a deal been done between Gove and Sunak?
Rishi for PM, Gove for COTE maybe?
My theory is that people will now think PM Rishi will make Cummings Chief Adviser so that will scare of most Tory MPs leaving the way for Gove.
LOL! What a wicked web we weave...
I think what is driving Gove is that he doesn’t want Brexit led to Scotland becoming independent to be his epitaph.
If Johnson denies a second referendum then that helps the Nats which is another problem for Gove.
I think Gove is in the we can win it camp.
But is there any evidence that he had any real interest in Scotland, once he had headed south? His infamous gaffe over Peterborough and Fraserhead does not bespeak a man thinking daily of Doric life.
I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
At the height of it we stationed some Vulcan bombers in Singapore with hydrogen bombs onboard, flew them to Darwin and while over Java opened the bomb doors.....Sukarno demanded they be shot down but his Air Force talked him out of it - so they burned down the British Embassy instead....
I didn't know any of that. Could you recommend any books about it?
Not directly related to Konfrontasi but "The Year of Living Dangerously" is a brilliant (fiction) book which captures the febrile atmosphere in Jakarta in the run-up to Sukarno's overthrow.
A superb film too. I remember it vividly after what must be more than 20 years.
If you saw it when it first came out (1982) nearer 40 years!
That's the second time today I have felt really old. The first was thinking the Delors Commission was roughly 20 years ago and discovering that it finished in 1994.
I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
Paddy Ashdown mentioned it occasionally - he fought in it.
My dad was posted to Singapore in 68. There were a lot of echoes and a regiment of Gurkhas on the island who had fought in it too. But it was kept very quiet at the time.
Deliberately - Britain was still bruised by the Suez experience vis a vis the US and didn't want to be seen as waging a "colonial" action - so officially it was Malayan run with British & Commonwealth "support"....
I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
At the height of it we stationed some Vulcan bombers in Singapore with hydrogen bombs onboard, flew them to Darwin and while over Java opened the bomb doors.....Sukarno demanded they be shot down but his Air Force talked him out of it - so they burned down the British Embassy instead....
I didn't know any of that. Could you recommend any books about it?
Doubt that they were armed with nukes very much.
The British government remained coy about their presence - but it appears they were deployed:
Thanks - that's interesting. Though kept to the bases and RN ship's magazines, it seems.
I suppose that's the whole point about deterrence - they might be onboard!
Seem to have been intended more for a general conflagration, WW3 and all that, as that interesting article you adduced says. But it all helped. [edit - muddling my dates, sorryt].
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
Is everyone who disagrees with you or offers a different perspective an ‘apologist’ for the govt. it’s rather tedious to read all the time to be honest.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
Is everyone who disagrees with you or offers a different perspective an ‘apologist’ for the govt. it’s rather tedious to read all the time to be honest.
Er, no. There are some on here who mindlessly suck up everything that Boris Johnson puts out for them. If they wish to be that gullible then they deserve to have the rise taken. I don't have a problem with those that have a more nuanced approach, such as suggesting the government is flawed but is still OK on balance. Blind loyalists are just weird in my opinion. Unquestioning loyalty to either extremely questionable characters such as Boris Johnson or Alex Salmond is an indication of extreme poor judgement. To call such people apologists is accurate.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
I doubt there's anyone on here that thinks mistakes haven't been made and the government got everything right.
Given this was like a once in a century calamity, the biggest disaster to befall the world since WWII, the question really is not whether mistakes were made but it's whether the mistakes that have been made were understandable or unreasonable. Would anyone else have done any better?
What would a Corbyn minority government with Lib-Dem, SNP and Green support have done? Personally I doubt Labour would have done much different to the Conservative government.
I will say that with something like this Theresa May might have done quite well. I think her instinct would probably have been to lockdown harder and earlier... But then again who knows how she'd have handled it...
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
Is everyone who disagrees with you or offers a different perspective an ‘apologist’ for the govt. it’s rather tedious to read all the time to be honest.
....and as if to prove my point 2 such mindless apologists "liked" your post lol. I don't think DavidL falls into that category, but he finds himself in somewhat dodgy company.
Right, it is my confident belief based upon experience that there are experts on this site on everything. I am about to go and collect 5 ducklings that my son has bought for his girlfriend. I have 2 cardboard boxes to put them in. They are a few weeks old.
What else do I need? Would it be a good idea to put some cat litter into the boxes? Some of my daughter's hay for her hamster? Or line them with newspaper? Will I need gloves?
What stops the buggers flying off? The girlfriend has a pond and a hutch/hide etc. Help!
The thing that did tickle me the most about yesterday's appearance was this WhatsApp message I received from people who used to work for the Tory party.
Dominic Cummings: Boris Johnson is totally unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
Greg Clark: What's your evidence for that?
Dominic Cummings: Well he employed for me for starters.
The NHS plans to 'scrape' the medical histories of patients, including sensitive stuff on mental and sexual health, criminal records and abuse, into a database to be shared with third parties. You have less than a month to opt out, if you want to .https://ft.com/content/9fee81"
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
I doubt there's anyone on here that thinks mistakes haven't been made and the government got everything right.
Given the was like a once in a century calamity, the biggest disaster since WWII the question really not whether mistakes were made but it's whether the mistakes that have been made were understandable or unreasonable. Would anyone else have done any better?
What would a Corbyn minority government with Lib-Dem, SNP and Green support have done? Personally I doubt Labour would have done much different to the Conservative government.
I will say that with something like this Theresa May might have done quite well. I think her instinct would probably have been to lockdown harder and earlier... But then again who knows how she'd have handled it...
I think you missed my point, because I think there are a couple of posters on here who are desperate to defend the government, and would continue to do so even if Boris Johnson was filmed eating babies. I have no idea whether Labour would have handled it better, but under Corbyn I suggest it would have been equally bad. The fundamental is that Johnson is good at winning elections, but is a very very poor executive. He displays no expertise in this area and demonstrates disorganisation and incompetence.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
Take a look in the mirror first matey before you start jumping to conclusions. I was a remainer and I don't like Boris Johnson. I am just fed up with the continual cheap shots that Boris is a liar about everything bexause he has lied in the past. It was the same with Blair the liar referred to as Blair that I was guilty of in the past.
I am not a Johnson apologist. I just react to.continual.oney eyed posts from the left on here. I would vote Tory every time to keep Labour out.
You know, I am pretty sure BB (before Brexit, as the calendar should now surely read) not every politician was "a pretty straight kind of guy" as one of them famously put it. I am not convinced that they even always told the truth. I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
But, if it makes you feel better PB (that's post Brexit although we might need a different abbreviation to avoid confusion with this august site) to believe otherwise, fair enough.
That's certanly true. The problem for me (and I may just be harking back to a nonexistent golden age) is that I seem to recall that a politician being caught lying used to be a big deal, that people cared about it and it sometimes made them unpopular. Now, everyone just shrugs.
I agree somewhat dully but in an attempt to be more controversial have we undermined the very concept of "lying" by expanding it way beyond its natural boundaries? So, someone who recalls the outcome of a meeting slightly differently from the minutes is "lying", someone who expresses an opinion we believe to be wrong is "lying", someone who adds a little colour to a basically true story to emphasise a point is "lying", politicians who answer the question they wanted to be asked or wanted to answer instead of the one they have been are "lying" and people who omit material things whilst giving truthful information are also "liars".
When you cast your net that wide it is not particularly surprising that a lot of people just shrug. They do the same in their own lives every day and would never consider it lying. When I stand up in court and emphasise the good points of my client's case and rather skip over the bad is that lying? I don't think so but others might, I suppose.
Absolutely - the site is full to overflowing with garbage today as those who hate the government, frustrated by the opinion polls have boarded the moral outrage bus by speaking their 'truth' a la H & M formerly of these lands and declared all Tory supporters as moral bankrupts. What larks!
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
I doubt there's anyone on here that thinks mistakes haven't been made and the government got everything right.
Given the was like a once in a century calamity, the biggest disaster since WWII the question really not whether mistakes were made but it's whether the mistakes that have been made were understandable or unreasonable. Would anyone else have done any better?
What would a Corbyn minority government with Lib-Dem, SNP and Green support have done? Personally I doubt Labour would have done much different to the Conservative government.
I will say that with something like this Theresa May might have done quite well. I think her instinct would probably have been to lockdown harder and earlier... But then again who knows how she'd have handled it...
I think you missed my point, because I think there are a couple of posters on here who are desperate to defend the government, and would continue to do so even if Boris Johnson was filmed eating babies. I have no idea whether Labour would have handled it better, but under Corbyn I suggest it would have been equally bad. The fundamental is that Johnson is good at winning elections, but is a very very poor executive. He displays no expertise in this area and demonstrates disorganisation and incompetence.
But, but, BBQ, babies, Tory, I am not sure that I am getting your point.
You know, I am pretty sure BB (before Brexit, as the calendar should now surely read) not every politician was "a pretty straight kind of guy" as one of them famously put it. I am not convinced that they even always told the truth. I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
But, if it makes you feel better PB (that's post Brexit although we might need a different abbreviation to avoid confusion with this august site) to believe otherwise, fair enough.
That's certanly true. The problem for me (and I may just be harking back to a nonexistent golden age) is that I seem to recall that a politician being caught lying used to be a big deal, that people cared about it and it sometimes made them unpopular. Now, everyone just shrugs.
I agree somewhat dully but in an attempt to be more controversial have we undermined the very concept of "lying" by expanding it way beyond its natural boundaries? So, someone who recalls the outcome of a meeting slightly differently from the minutes is "lying", someone who expresses an opinion we believe to be wrong is "lying", someone who adds a little colour to a basically true story to emphasise a point is "lying", politicians who answer the question they wanted to be asked or wanted to answer instead of the one they have been are "lying" and people who omit material things whilst giving truthful information are also "liars".
When you cast your net that wide it is not particularly surprising that a lot of people just shrug. They do the same in their own lives every day and would never consider it lying. When I stand up in court and emphasise the good points of my client's case and rather skip over the bad is that lying? I don't think so but others might, I suppose.
Absolutely - the site is full to overflowing with garbage today as those who hate the government, frustrated by the opinion polls have boarded the moral outrage bus by speaking their 'truth' a la H & M formerly of these lands and declared all Tory supporters as moral bankrupts. What larks!
Maybe we'll get a "night of long knives" next where Gove, Sunak, Rabb and Priti all get sacked?
Do you think that would improve Labours chances. Boris could sack all of them and replace all of them with unknowns and Labour would still be struggling.
Is there any prospect of that? I have no wish to see a Labour Government, of course....
But if you Conservatives could arrange things so that all the forementioned go, along with Johnson, Princess Nut Nuts and their untrained pooch, and replace thm with honest and competent Conservatives - there must be some, surely - that would be a great step forward.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
I doubt there's anyone on here that thinks mistakes haven't been made and the government got everything right.
Given the was like a once in a century calamity, the biggest disaster since WWII the question really not whether mistakes were made but it's whether the mistakes that have been made were understandable or unreasonable. Would anyone else have done any better?
What would a Corbyn minority government with Lib-Dem, SNP and Green support have done? Personally I doubt Labour would have done much different to the Conservative government.
I will say that with something like this Theresa May might have done quite well. I think her instinct would probably have been to lockdown harder and earlier... But then again who knows how she'd have handled it...
I think you missed my point, because I think there are a couple of posters on here who are desperate to defend the government, and would continue to do so even if Boris Johnson was filmed eating babies. I have no idea whether Labour would have handled it better, but under Corbyn I suggest it would have been equally bad. The fundamental is that Johnson is good at winning elections, but is a very very poor executive. He displays no expertise in this area and demonstrates disorganisation and incompetence.
I don't think there's a single person here who defends Boris on every issue.
Personally I get accused by you of being an apologist but have attacked the government on probably dozens of different issues. Most recently the cowardly and farcically slow pace of lifting lockdown.
The thing that did tickle me the most about yesterday's appearance was this WhatsApp message I received from people who used to work for the Tory party.
Dominic Cummings: Boris Johnson is totally unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
Greg Clark: What's your evidence for that?
Dominic Cummings: Well he employed for me for starters.
In fairness as Foxy suggested yesterday Boris does now have the Trump problem (though nowhere near as severely) of needing to trash his former employee who he praised to all and sundry (and used up lots of political capital to defend, including losing a chancellor over him).
A blow out always looked inevitable between them. If Cummings is to be believed it's amazing it wasnt sooner. So why the heck did Boris not fire him earlier when lots demanded it? Hed cause less damage now if so.
This was inevitable the day Boris Johnson appointed him.
I know several people who have worked in close proximity and pretty much they all think he's the biggest [moderated] in the world, even those who agree with him.
As the old saying goes there's not an apple cart Cummings has seen that he doesn't want to overturn.
He might spot a problem but he tells the people that we've done their entire lives is wrong and worthless and now he wants them to what he tells them, even the face of all the evidence that he is wrong.
Remember in 2010 Michael Gove was made Education Secretary and had a lot of good will in the sector for the changes he wanted to enact but Cummings upset them all and Sir Lynton Crosby persuaded David Cameron to demote Gove in 2014 because Gove's ratings were so poor that it would cost Dave a majority in 2015.
For somebody with a galaxy sized brain Cummings is very poor at people skills and de-escalating things.
Remember you and I have paid out many times for Cummings being a [moderated].
What kind of shit calls armed officers on a defenceless woman? One with issues is my guess.
""police officer stationed at the door of No 10 Downing Street escorted a woman from the front door to exit gates as she did not have a security pass at the time".
About a million miles from "calls armed officers on a defenceless woman"
You complain about Cummings and then post outright lies and you are even too dumb to realise people will check them.
Richard, I know people who saw the incident, there's a reason why the government paid her an out of court settlement.
FYI - The police officers outside Number 10 are armed, they aren't lawn jockeys.
She was paid an out of court settlement because she was unfairly dismissed not because she was escorted to the gate.
Oh and one of my cousins IS one of the protection officers at Downing Street (and other locations)
Even after the settlement she says she was escorted by armed officers, now if that didn't happen the government and their legal team would have insisted in the settlement she shouldn't repeated the allegations, that they didn't speaks volumes.
Of course they were armed. What is a lie is your claim that Cummings "calls armed officers on a defenceless woman"
So I thought I would settle this and just phoned my cousin. Not specifically about this of course as he wasn't involved but about the general policy. Guess what. Every single person without a security pass who enters or leaves the building is escorted in and out. No one is allowed to just wander around without an escort for blindingly obvious reasons.
It is exactly the same as if you are sacked from a company and are escorted off the premises by the security guards. It is a normal part of life and you trying to make it anything more than that just shows how much you are scraping the barrel.
You know, I am pretty sure BB (before Brexit, as the calendar should now surely read) not every politician was "a pretty straight kind of guy" as one of them famously put it. I am not convinced that they even always told the truth. I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
But, if it makes you feel better PB (that's post Brexit although we might need a different abbreviation to avoid confusion with this august site) to believe otherwise, fair enough.
That's certanly true. The problem for me (and I may just be harking back to a nonexistent golden age) is that I seem to recall that a politician being caught lying used to be a big deal, that people cared about it and it sometimes made them unpopular. Now, everyone just shrugs.
I agree somewhat dully but in an attempt to be more controversial have we undermined the very concept of "lying" by expanding it way beyond its natural boundaries? So, someone who recalls the outcome of a meeting slightly differently from the minutes is "lying", someone who expresses an opinion we believe to be wrong is "lying", someone who adds a little colour to a basically true story to emphasise a point is "lying", politicians who answer the question they wanted to be asked or wanted to answer instead of the one they have been are "lying" and people who omit material things whilst giving truthful information are also "liars".
When you cast your net that wide it is not particularly surprising that a lot of people just shrug. They do the same in their own lives every day and would never consider it lying. When I stand up in court and emphasise the good points of my client's case and rather skip over the bad is that lying? I don't think so but others might, I suppose.
Absolutely - the site is full to overflowing with garbage today as those who hate the government, frustrated by the opinion polls have boarded the moral outrage bus by speaking their 'truth' a la H & M formerly of these lands and declared all Tory supporters as moral bankrupts. What larks!
Maybe we'll get a "night of long knives" next where Gove, Sunak, Rabb and Priti all get sacked?
Do you think that would improve Labours chances. Boris could sack all of them and replace all of them with unknowns and Labour would still be struggling.
Is there any prospect of that? I have no wish to see a Labour Government, of course....
But if you Conservatives could arrange things so that all the forementioned go, along with Johnson, Princess Nut Nuts and their untrained pooch, and replace thm with honest and competent Conservatives - there must be some, surely - that would be a great step forward.
Oh dear - has the LD revival been postponed....again....
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
I doubt there's anyone on here that thinks mistakes haven't been made and the government got everything right.
Given this was like a once in a century calamity, the biggest disaster to befall the world since WWII, the question really is not whether mistakes were made but it's whether the mistakes that have been made were understandable or unreasonable. Would anyone else have done any better?
What would a Corbyn minority government with Lib-Dem, SNP and Green support have done? Personally I doubt Labour would have done much different to the Conservative government.
I will say that with something like this Theresa May might have done quite well. I think her instinct would probably have been to lockdown harder and earlier... But then again who knows how she'd have handled it...
It has reduced clever minds to mush - the unthinking acceptance that the other option would have been a success in an unprecedented situation
Critics say the Government made it worse, fans of the Government say it could have been worse, and the huge majority of people are too wise to commit to either opinion
You know, I am pretty sure BB (before Brexit, as the calendar should now surely read) not every politician was "a pretty straight kind of guy" as one of them famously put it. I am not convinced that they even always told the truth. I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
But, if it makes you feel better PB (that's post Brexit although we might need a different abbreviation to avoid confusion with this august site) to believe otherwise, fair enough.
That's certanly true. The problem for me (and I may just be harking back to a nonexistent golden age) is that I seem to recall that a politician being caught lying used to be a big deal, that people cared about it and it sometimes made them unpopular. Now, everyone just shrugs.
I agree somewhat dully but in an attempt to be more controversial have we undermined the very concept of "lying" by expanding it way beyond its natural boundaries? So, someone who recalls the outcome of a meeting slightly differently from the minutes is "lying", someone who expresses an opinion we believe to be wrong is "lying", someone who adds a little colour to a basically true story to emphasise a point is "lying", politicians who answer the question they wanted to be asked or wanted to answer instead of the one they have been are "lying" and people who omit material things whilst giving truthful information are also "liars".
When you cast your net that wide it is not particularly surprising that a lot of people just shrug. They do the same in their own lives every day and would never consider it lying. When I stand up in court and emphasise the good points of my client's case and rather skip over the bad is that lying? I don't think so but others might, I suppose.
Absolutely - the site is full to overflowing with garbage today as those who hate the government, frustrated by the opinion polls have boarded the moral outrage bus by speaking their 'truth' a la H & M formerly of these lands and declared all Tory supporters as moral bankrupts. What larks!
Sod the larks, what about my ducks?
Lost their house?
See my post of 3.28. Surely the group mind of PB has not come up empty?
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
I doubt there's anyone on here that thinks mistakes haven't been made and the government got everything right.
Given the was like a once in a century calamity, the biggest disaster since WWII the question really not whether mistakes were made but it's whether the mistakes that have been made were understandable or unreasonable. Would anyone else have done any better?
What would a Corbyn minority government with Lib-Dem, SNP and Green support have done? Personally I doubt Labour would have done much different to the Conservative government.
I will say that with something like this Theresa May might have done quite well. I think her instinct would probably have been to lockdown harder and earlier... But then again who knows how she'd have handled it...
I think you missed my point, because I think there are a couple of posters on here who are desperate to defend the government, and would continue to do so even if Boris Johnson was filmed eating babies. I have no idea whether Labour would have handled it better, but under Corbyn I suggest it would have been equally bad. The fundamental is that Johnson is good at winning elections, but is a very very poor executive. He displays no expertise in this area and demonstrates disorganisation and incompetence.
I don't think there's a single person here who defends Boris on every issue.
Personally I get accused by you of being an apologist but have attacked the government on probably dozens of different issues. Most recently the cowardly and farcically slow pace of lifting lockdown.
I can't see you being too complementary if June 21 Freedom Day is reneged on.
Most of your predictions came true except... why did he mostly spare Rishi? Has a deal been done between Gove and Sunak?
Rishi for PM, Gove for COTE maybe?
My theory is that people will now think PM Rishi will make Cummings Chief Adviser so that will scare off most Tory MPs leaving the way for Gove.
So let me get this straight.
Cummings promoted Sunak in yesterday's committee session in order to undermine Sunak, by implying he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor in the event of a Sunak premiership, thus scaring off Tory MPs, ensuring Gove becomes PM instead of current favourite Sunak, and he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor.
Blimey, its hard work keeping up with the mechanics of the Conservative Party.
Most of your predictions came true except... why did he mostly spare Rishi? Has a deal been done between Gove and Sunak?
Rishi for PM, Gove for COTE maybe?
My theory is that people will now think PM Rishi will make Cummings Chief Adviser so that will scare off most Tory MPs leaving the way for Gove.
So let me get this straight.
Cummings promoted Sunak in yesterday's committee session in order to undermine Sunak, by implying he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor in the event of a Sunak premiership, thus scaring off Tory MPs, ensuring Gove becomes PM instead of current favourite Sunak, and he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor.
Blimey, its hard work keeping up with the mechanics of the Conservative Party.
The thing that did tickle me the most about yesterday's appearance was this WhatsApp message I received from people who used to work for the Tory party.
Dominic Cummings: Boris Johnson is totally unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
Greg Clark: What's your evidence for that?
Dominic Cummings: Well he employed for me for starters.
In fairness as Foxy suggested yesterday Boris does now have the Trump problem (though nowhere near as severely) of needing to trash his former employee who he praised to all and sundry (and used up lots of political capital to defend, including losing a chancellor over him).
A blow out always looked inevitable between them. If Cummings is to be believed it's amazing it wasnt sooner. So why the heck did Boris not fire him earlier when lots demanded it? Hed cause less damage now if so.
This was inevitable the day Boris Johnson appointed him.
I know several people who have worked in close proximity and pretty much they all think he's the biggest [moderated] in the world, even those who agree with him.
As the old saying goes there's not an apple cart Cummings has seen that he doesn't want to overturn.
He might spot a problem but he tells the people that we've done their entire lives is wrong and worthless and now he wants them to what he tells them, even the face of all the evidence that he is wrong.
Remember in 2010 Michael Gove was made Education Secretary and had a lot of good will in the sector for the changes he wanted to enact but Cummings upset them all and Sir Lynton Crosby persuaded David Cameron to demote Gove in 2014 because Gove's ratings were so poor that it would cost Dave a majority in 2015.
For somebody with a galaxy sized brain Cummings is very poor at people skills and de-escalating things.
Remember you and I have paid out many times for Cummings being a [moderated].
What kind of shit calls armed officers on a defenceless woman? One with issues is my guess.
""police officer stationed at the door of No 10 Downing Street escorted a woman from the front door to exit gates as she did not have a security pass at the time".
About a million miles from "calls armed officers on a defenceless woman"
You complain about Cummings and then post outright lies and you are even too dumb to realise people will check them.
Richard, I know people who saw the incident, there's a reason why the government paid her an out of court settlement.
FYI - The police officers outside Number 10 are armed, they aren't lawn jockeys.
She was paid an out of court settlement because she was unfairly dismissed not because she was escorted to the gate.
Oh and one of my cousins IS one of the protection officers at Downing Street (and other locations)
Even after the settlement she says she was escorted by armed officers, now if that didn't happen the government and their legal team would have insisted in the settlement she shouldn't repeated the allegations, that they didn't speaks volumes.
Of course they were armed. What is a lie is your claim that Cummings "calls armed officers on a defenceless woman"
So I thought I would settle this and just phoned my cousin. Not specifically about this of course as he wasn't involved but about the general policy. Guess what. Every single person without a security pass who enters or leaves the building is escorted in and out. No one is allowed to just wander around without an escort for blindingly obvious reasons.
It is exactly the same as if you are sacked from a company and are escorted off the premises by the security guards. It is a normal part of life and you trying to make it anything more than that just shows how much you are scraping the barrel.
How many security guards at companies in the UK are armed?
"Rob Roberts: Commons leader calls on MP to stand down
Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has increased the pressure on Conservative MP Rob Roberts to resign. He said it would be "honourable" for the Delyn MP to stand down after an investigation found he sexually harassed an employee."
Not to be a Debbie downer, but the vaccine numbers, although up, we haven't seen the massive expansion that was suggested 3-4 weeks ago, that was supposed to start mid month. We have seen a decent increase, but not the sort of level of expansion muted.
What I would say though is if you want a vaccine and you are in the allowed groups you can get one pretty much immediately. I booked my 2nd yesterday and I was offered dozens of different locations and times all within the next couple of days.
"Rob Roberts: Commons leader calls on MP to stand down
Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has increased the pressure on Conservative MP Rob Roberts to resign. He said it would be "honourable" for the Delyn MP to stand down after an investigation found he sexually harassed an employee."
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
"Rob Roberts: Commons leader calls on MP to stand down
Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has increased the pressure on Conservative MP Rob Roberts to resign. He said it would be "honourable" for the Delyn MP to stand down after an investigation found he sexually harassed an employee."
Most of your predictions came true except... why did he mostly spare Rishi? Has a deal been done between Gove and Sunak?
Rishi for PM, Gove for COTE maybe?
My theory is that people will now think PM Rishi will make Cummings Chief Adviser so that will scare off most Tory MPs leaving the way for Gove.
So let me get this straight.
Cummings promoted Sunak in yesterday's committee session in order to undermine Sunak, by implying he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor in the event of a Sunak premiership, thus scaring off Tory MPs, ensuring Gove becomes PM instead of current favourite Sunak, and he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor.
Blimey, its hard work keeping up with the mechanics of the Conservative Party.
In House of Cards (UK version) Francis Urquhart bigged up one leadership contender knowing full well he was the Party Chairman’s chosen candidate then got the PM to sack the Party Chairman for disloyalty knowing the Chairman hadn’t been disloyal but knew the PM’s supporters would back anyone who was best placed to beat the Chairman’s chosen candidate.
You know, I am pretty sure BB (before Brexit, as the calendar should now surely read) not every politician was "a pretty straight kind of guy" as one of them famously put it. I am not convinced that they even always told the truth. I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
But, if it makes you feel better PB (that's post Brexit although we might need a different abbreviation to avoid confusion with this august site) to believe otherwise, fair enough.
That's certanly true. The problem for me (and I may just be harking back to a nonexistent golden age) is that I seem to recall that a politician being caught lying used to be a big deal, that people cared about it and it sometimes made them unpopular. Now, everyone just shrugs.
I agree somewhat dully but in an attempt to be more controversial have we undermined the very concept of "lying" by expanding it way beyond its natural boundaries? So, someone who recalls the outcome of a meeting slightly differently from the minutes is "lying", someone who expresses an opinion we believe to be wrong is "lying", someone who adds a little colour to a basically true story to emphasise a point is "lying", politicians who answer the question they wanted to be asked or wanted to answer instead of the one they have been are "lying" and people who omit material things whilst giving truthful information are also "liars".
When you cast your net that wide it is not particularly surprising that a lot of people just shrug. They do the same in their own lives every day and would never consider it lying. When I stand up in court and emphasise the good points of my client's case and rather skip over the bad is that lying? I don't think so but others might, I suppose.
Absolutely - the site is full to overflowing with garbage today as those who hate the government, frustrated by the opinion polls have boarded the moral outrage bus by speaking their 'truth' a la H & M formerly of these lands and declared all Tory supporters as moral bankrupts. What larks!
Sod the larks, what about my ducks?
Lost their house?
See my post of 3.28. Surely the group mind of PB has not come up empty?
The NHS plans to 'scrape' the medical histories of patients, including sensitive stuff on mental and sexual health, criminal records and abuse, into a database to be shared with third parties. You have less than a month to opt out, if you want to .https://ft.com/content/9fee81"
Opt-in is an appealing idea in some ways, but the fact is that - as with organ donation - a lot of people would simply never get round to it or choose to "decide later" when they've got time to think about it in detail (i.e. never). If you have an opt-in system then the people who get around to opting in will be those with an interest in research or medical conditions - likely a very unrepresentative group. If the data are not representative, then they are largely useless.
I work with rare conditions and have used the hospital data to count how many people have those conditions, something that has directly led to increased government funding to care for those people (as previous estimates, based on surveys and the like, massively underestimated the size of that population - people with rare, severe conditions are hard to reach in surveys because they've got a lot of other shit going on). There's not really any other reasonable way of doing things like that.
As another example, here's a paper that described the problems with metal on metal hip replacements, part of the evidence leading to them being withdrawn and no longer used. Patient data entered in a registry and shared with third parties. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612603535
Unless you want te NHS to run all safety and epidemiological analysis, devoid of outside scrutiny (Mid-Staffs, anyone?) then it's hard to make the argument that NHS data should never be shared with third parties. Requiring opt-in would make the data pretty useless. Allowing opt-out makes the data worse, but I do think that should be an option (as it is) although there is a debate to be had on that too.
Not to be a Debbie downer, but the vaccine numbers, although up, we haven't seen the massive expansion that was suggested 3-4 weeks ago, that was supposed to start mid month. We have seen a decent increase, but not the sort of level of expansion muted.
The rolling average is just off the high we achieved on 22nd April.
Yes, the rolling average has picked up significantly:
What's remarkable is how much the US vaccine numbers have cratered. Guessing they've ran into a wall of vaccine hesitancy rather than running out of supply?
Quite a funny coincidence that they never overtook us in vaccines done per capita - they came incredibly close where they nearly overtook the UK but were one day behind our totals before falling away again.
Yes, plenty of supply in the US. Freely available to anyone, no appointment necessary, at vax centre and now also at most physicians' offices and pharmacies. All 4 pharmacies in our small town are offering walk-up vaccination. Most States are now offering incentives to get vaccinated, such as $100 in municipal bonds.
The NHS plans to 'scrape' the medical histories of patients, including sensitive stuff on mental and sexual health, criminal records and abuse, into a database to be shared with third parties. You have less than a month to opt out, if you want to .https://ft.com/content/9fee81"
Most of your predictions came true except... why did he mostly spare Rishi? Has a deal been done between Gove and Sunak?
Rishi for PM, Gove for COTE maybe?
My theory is that people will now think PM Rishi will make Cummings Chief Adviser so that will scare off most Tory MPs leaving the way for Gove.
So let me get this straight.
Cummings promoted Sunak in yesterday's committee session in order to undermine Sunak, by implying he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor in the event of a Sunak premiership, thus scaring off Tory MPs, ensuring Gove becomes PM instead of current favourite Sunak, and he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor.
Blimey, its hard work keeping up with the mechanics of the Conservative Party.
In House of Cards (UK version) Francis Urquhart bigged up one leadership contender knowing full well he was the Party Chairman’s chosen candidate then got the PM to sack the Party Chairman for disloyalty knowing the Chairman hadn’t been disloyal but knew the PM’s supporters would back anyone who was best placed to beat the Chairman’s chosen candidate.
Michael Dobbs knows what he wrote about.
...yeah but, Cummings' scheme is even more sophisticated than Urquhart's scheme, and Urquhart was a fictional Machiavellian characature....
Most of your predictions came true except... why did he mostly spare Rishi? Has a deal been done between Gove and Sunak?
Rishi for PM, Gove for COTE maybe?
My theory is that people will now think PM Rishi will make Cummings Chief Adviser so that will scare off most Tory MPs leaving the way for Gove.
So let me get this straight.
Cummings promoted Sunak in yesterday's committee session in order to undermine Sunak, by implying he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor in the event of a Sunak premiership, thus scaring off Tory MPs, ensuring Gove becomes PM instead of current favourite Sunak, and he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor.
Blimey, its hard work keeping up with the mechanics of the Conservative Party.
In House of Cards (UK version) Francis Urquhart bigged up one leadership contender knowing full well he was the Party Chairman’s chosen candidate then got the PM to sack the Party Chairman for disloyalty knowing the Chairman hadn’t been disloyal but knew the PM’s supporters would back anyone who was best placed to beat the Chairman’s chosen candidate.
Michael Dobbs knows what he wrote about.
...yeah but, Cummings' scheme is even more sophisticated than Urquhart's scheme, and Urquhart was a fictional Machiavellian characature....
Well more people have said ‘FU’ to Cummings than did to Francis Urquhart.
Most of your predictions came true except... why did he mostly spare Rishi? Has a deal been done between Gove and Sunak?
Rishi for PM, Gove for COTE maybe?
My theory is that people will now think PM Rishi will make Cummings Chief Adviser so that will scare off most Tory MPs leaving the way for Gove.
So let me get this straight.
Cummings promoted Sunak in yesterday's committee session in order to undermine Sunak, by implying he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor in the event of a Sunak premiership, thus scaring off Tory MPs, ensuring Gove becomes PM instead of current favourite Sunak, and he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor.
Blimey, its hard work keeping up with the mechanics of the Conservative Party.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
I doubt there's anyone on here that thinks mistakes haven't been made and the government got everything right.
Given the was like a once in a century calamity, the biggest disaster since WWII the question really not whether mistakes were made but it's whether the mistakes that have been made were understandable or unreasonable. Would anyone else have done any better?
What would a Corbyn minority government with Lib-Dem, SNP and Green support have done? Personally I doubt Labour would have done much different to the Conservative government.
I will say that with something like this Theresa May might have done quite well. I think her instinct would probably have been to lockdown harder and earlier... But then again who knows how she'd have handled it...
I think you missed my point, because I think there are a couple of posters on here who are desperate to defend the government, and would continue to do so even if Boris Johnson was filmed eating babies. I have no idea whether Labour would have handled it better, but under Corbyn I suggest it would have been equally bad. The fundamental is that Johnson is good at winning elections, but is a very very poor executive. He displays no expertise in this area and demonstrates disorganisation and incompetence.
I don't think there's a single person here who defends Boris on every issue.
Personally I get accused by you of being an apologist but have attacked the government on probably dozens of different issues. Most recently the cowardly and farcically slow pace of lifting lockdown.
I can't see you being too complementary if June 21 Freedom Day is reneged on.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
He is, however, right that the electorate isn’t, right now at least, remotely interested. I am just back from dog training class and all of the others spent the entire break slagging off Cummings; there wasn’t the slightest interest in whether any of the allegations had any truth in them, at all.
Not to be a Debbie downer, but the vaccine numbers, although up, we haven't seen the massive expansion that was suggested 3-4 weeks ago, that was supposed to start mid month. We have seen a decent increase, but not the sort of level of expansion muted.
The rolling average is just off the high we achieved on 22nd April.
Yes, the rolling average has picked up significantly:
What's remarkable is how much the US vaccine numbers have cratered. Guessing they've ran into a wall of vaccine hesitancy rather than running out of supply?
Quite a funny coincidence that they never overtook us in vaccines done per capita - they came incredibly close where they nearly overtook the UK but were one day behind our totals before falling away again.
Yes, plenty of supply in the US. Freely available to anyone, no appointment necessary, at vax centre and now also at most physicians' offices and pharmacies. All 4 pharmacies in our small town are offering walk-up vaccination. Most States are now offering incentives to get vaccinated, such as $100 in municipal bonds.
You know, I am pretty sure BB (before Brexit, as the calendar should now surely read) not every politician was "a pretty straight kind of guy" as one of them famously put it. I am not convinced that they even always told the truth. I vaguely recall, for example, our government forgetting to mention that we fought a 3 year war in Borneo in the mid 60s. No doubt it just slipped their mind.
But, if it makes you feel better PB (that's post Brexit although we might need a different abbreviation to avoid confusion with this august site) to believe otherwise, fair enough.
That's certanly true. The problem for me (and I may just be harking back to a nonexistent golden age) is that I seem to recall that a politician being caught lying used to be a big deal, that people cared about it and it sometimes made them unpopular. Now, everyone just shrugs.
I agree somewhat dully but in an attempt to be more controversial have we undermined the very concept of "lying" by expanding it way beyond its natural boundaries? So, someone who recalls the outcome of a meeting slightly differently from the minutes is "lying", someone who expresses an opinion we believe to be wrong is "lying", someone who adds a little colour to a basically true story to emphasise a point is "lying", politicians who answer the question they wanted to be asked or wanted to answer instead of the one they have been are "lying" and people who omit material things whilst giving truthful information are also "liars".
When you cast your net that wide it is not particularly surprising that a lot of people just shrug. They do the same in their own lives every day and would never consider it lying. When I stand up in court and emphasise the good points of my client's case and rather skip over the bad is that lying? I don't think so but others might, I suppose.
Absolutely - the site is full to overflowing with garbage today as those who hate the government, frustrated by the opinion polls have boarded the moral outrage bus by speaking their 'truth' a la H & M formerly of these lands and declared all Tory supporters as moral bankrupts. What larks!
Sod the larks, what about my ducks?
Lost their house?
See my post of 3.28. Surely the group mind of PB has not come up empty?
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
That's still at herd immunity levels, and younger people are more likely to have antibodies acquired from prior infection.
The NHS plans to 'scrape' the medical histories of patients, including sensitive stuff on mental and sexual health, criminal records and abuse, into a database to be shared with third parties. You have less than a month to opt out, if you want to .https://ft.com/content/9fee81"
I couldn't care less what the NHS does with my anonymised data - use it for research, sell it to raise money for patient care, whatever. That's why it's anonymised, duh.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
He is, however, right that the electorate isn’t, right now at least, remotely interested. I am just back from dog training class and all of the others spent the entire break slagging off Cummings; there wasn’t the slightest interest in whether any of the allegations had any truth in them, at all.
The NHS plans to 'scrape' the medical histories of patients, including sensitive stuff on mental and sexual health, criminal records and abuse, into a database to be shared with third parties. You have less than a month to opt out, if you want to .https://ft.com/content/9fee81"
Opt-in is an appealing idea in some ways, but the fact is that - as with organ donation - a lot of people would simply never get round to it or choose to "decide later" when they've got time to think about it in detail (i.e. never). If you have an opt-in system then the people who get around to opting in will be those with an interest in research or medical conditions - likely a very unrepresentative group. If the data are not representative, then they are largely useless.
I work with rare conditions and have used the hospital data to count how many people have those conditions, something that has directly led to increased government funding to care for those people (as previous estimates, based on surveys and the like, massively underestimated the size of that population - people with rare, severe conditions are hard to reach in surveys because they've got a lot of other shit going on). There's not really any other reasonable way of doing things like that.
As another example, here's a paper that described the problems with metal on metal hip replacements, part of the evidence leading to them being withdrawn and no longer used. Patient data entered in a registry and shared with third parties. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612603535
Unless you want te NHS to run all safety and epidemiological analysis, devoid of outside scrutiny (Mid-Staffs, anyone?) then it's hard to make the argument that NHS data should never be shared with third parties. Requiring opt-in would make the data pretty useless. Allowing opt-out makes the data worse, but I do think that should be an option (as it is) although there is a debate to be had on that too.
(Too late to edit, but to add)
We're incredibly bad in this country, as NHS Digital, scientists etc in explaining the benefits of using routine data in research. I googled for something along the line of a list of case studies of benefits of the data, but the above just came fom my own knowledge (worked with one of the authors).
There should be an easily accessible list of plain English summaries of what the data have been used for and what the benefits were. We, as scientists, should be required to write them at the end of the data sharing agreement (you get access to the data for a limited period, often ~3 years, after which they are destroyed).
The CPRD (which I have also used, run by MHRA of approving covid vaccines fame) do have something like this, albeit brief. CPRD provide GP data from a sample of practices (about 8% population coverage). The same data that are currently causing the fuss, the main difference being that the new dataset will be near enough 100% population coverage.
Case studies: https://www.cprd.com/CPRDcasestudies - Higher risks of flu and COVID-19 for cancer survivors - Safety of the MenB vaccine - Preventing whooping cough in new-born babies etc...
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
That's why vaccine passports might become necessary, as we might need to give a nudge, or even a shove, to some of the dafter chunks of the populace.
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
That's still at herd immunity levels, and younger people are more likely to have antibodies acquired from prior infection.
Is it though? Or is it just high enough that the number hospitalised will be low. Something that hasn’t been much discussed by Johnson or that useless lump at Education is what happens to schools with testing. If we keep doing twice weekly testing in schools, we’ll keep finding cases. And keep having to shut schools.
We are not back to normal until we stop routine testing and stop panicking when a case is found. If someone gets sick and tests positive, then that guides their treatment. It shouldn’t lead to disruption for anyone they may or may not have come into contact with.
I wonder if people like contrarian have considered that their refusal to take a vaccine increases the likelihood it will be given to millions of children?
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
Lord North needed better spin doctors. Calling his primary legislation the "intolerable acts" may have been honest but it was hardly going to be endearing the colonies to him. 😉
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
That's why vaccine passports might become necessary, as we might need to give a nudge, or even a shove, to some of the dafter chunks of the populace.
Bring back penal colonies for those who don’t get vaccinated and move them to places like Rockall, The Pitcairn Islands, and Middlesbrough and then nuke the Smoggies.
Oh dear.. is everything's going to be about Boris being an unashamed liar.. its getting very boring and I suspect the electorate are not interested. Boris must be the teflon dead cat that those who dislike him can thrash away at to little or no effect.
Oh dear, another obsequious post from one of the Government's apologists and predictably "liked" by the usual PB Johnsonphile automatons! Ever wondered about being independent of thought? Ever imagined that it might be possible that the government you voted for might have got things wrong? No, of course not. My party right or wrong. The Führerprinzip is a philosophy alive and well among Johnson's faithful and unthinking followers.
He is, however, right that the electorate isn’t, right now at least, remotely interested. I am just back from dog training class and all of the others spent the entire break slagging off Cummings; there wasn’t the slightest interest in whether any of the allegations had any truth in them, at all.
It's weird - you and the entire liberal commentariat trashed Cummings week in week out over the Covid breach and you're now puzzled that the public don't believe him when he trashes the government. If I was clever I'd probably say you've been hoisted by your own petard but I'm just a dumbass BFb! Oh well. Never mind.
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
That's why vaccine passports might become necessary, as we might need to give a nudge, or even a shove, to some of the dafter chunks of the populace.
Personally I would mandate it by law. Of everything done in the last year and a bit, it’d be no big deal.
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
I don’t think that’s right, actually. People have dismissed both Mayoralty wins as ‘just being against Ken’ - forgetting that KL was a popular London politician, and his 2019 majority as being ‘Just against Corbyn’. The Brexit win is trickier as that would mean criticising Cameron or praising Farage. His, and his party’s, sensational poll ratings are dismissed as a ‘Vaccine bounce’ whilst we wait for the public to start liking Sir Keir.
So, yes people criticise him personally, but also pour cold water on any acknowledgement that he has done well at all. A bit like when Laurence Fox started being controversial, all the people who disagreed with him started saying he was a bad actor too! It’s the modern mindset, not a nice one - if you disagree politically w someone, they can’t be given credit in any other sphere or the benefit of any doubt. Sad times
The NHS plans to 'scrape' the medical histories of patients, including sensitive stuff on mental and sexual health, criminal records and abuse, into a database to be shared with third parties. You have less than a month to opt out, if you want to .https://ft.com/content/9fee81"
I couldn't care less what the NHS does with my anonymised data - use it for research, sell it to raise money for patient care, whatever. That's why it's anonymised, duh.
Well, it is 'sold'. Getting it is damned expensive. In my current fellowship about £70k is for data (out of around £350k total funding, to NHS Digital and CPRD). Both are not in theory profit-making, but it covers the costs of gathering and housing the data for internal NHS use too, I guess.
On selling individual-level data to commercial entities, I am a bit uneasy. Medical insurance companies for example, are likely to know exactly when you had a hospital admission, where and for what procedure. That could be enough for them to re-identify you from the 'anonymised' data and gain information on your other health conditions/history. Illegal, of course, but still...
Aggregate data are also made available and NHS Digital can run queries for you - i.e. what's the prevalence of condition X in patients with characteristics X, Y and Z. That's fine. I'd be happy to see NHSD have a commercial arm answering those kinds of questions without handing out individual level data.
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
Oh I get it - you're playing the 'morality' card to excuse your lack of answer. Try just considering for a nano second maybe you're wrong and the public have it right. I know it's hard but just ease up on the entitlement syndrome. Footie fans are a laugh a minute - the brain dead are all on twitter calling people fanbois.
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
Lord North needed better spin doctors. Calling his primary legislation the "intolerable acts" may have been honest but it was hardly going to be endearing the colonies to him. 😉
Pre the publication of 1984, which politicians have been using as a manual ever since. He probably had a Minister of War too.
I am not sure you have got the hang of this polling mullarkey.
If responses are taken a day or two before an event, it is unlikely that the responses will be in relation to the event...unless the respondent is psychic...or from the future.
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
80-90 is less antivaxxers, more the lazy bunch
I know the ONS pop numbers are flawed but in London it’s in the 70 percents for that age range.
I am not sure you have got the hang of this polling mullarkey.
If responses are taken a day or two before an event, it is unlikely that the responses will be in relation to the event...unless the respondent is psychic...or from the future.
To be fair, the headline quotes were all over the internet, and on the overnight front pages, so those who answer opinion polls would probably have been influenced to some extent.
I am not sure you have got the hang of this polling mullarkey.
If responses are taken a day or two before an event, it is unlikely that the responses will be in relation to the event...unless the respondent is psychic...or from the future.
Love it when people dont' realise they are being trolled.
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
That's why vaccine passports might become necessary, as we might need to give a nudge, or even a shove, to some of the dafter chunks of the populace.
Bring back penal colonies for those who don’t get vaccinated and move them to places like Rockall, The Pitcairn Islands, and Middlesbrough and then nuke the Smoggies.
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
Oh I get it - you're playing the 'morality' card to excuse your lack of answer. Try just considering for a nano second maybe you're wrong and the public have it right. I know it's hard but just ease up on the entitlement syndrome. Footie fans are a laugh a minute - the brain dead are all on twitter calling people fanbois.
I am not sure what question I am meant to lack an answer to, but approaching important questions from the point of view of morality is what adults are meant to do; it isn't "playing a card."
I am not sure you have got the hang of this polling mullarkey.
If responses are taken a day or two before an event, it is unlikely that the responses will be in relation to the event...unless the respondent is psychic...or from the future.
To be fair, the headline quotes were all over the internet, and on the overnight front pages, so those who answer opinion polls would probably have been influenced to some extent.
I suspect you are clutching at straws here, unless opinion poll respondents behave like I do with my tax returns and submit them on the evening of January 31st. Most I would hazard, do not.
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
Oh I get it - you're playing the 'morality' card to excuse your lack of answer. Try just considering for a nano second maybe you're wrong and the public have it right. I know it's hard but just ease up on the entitlement syndrome. Footie fans are a laugh a minute - the brain dead are all on twitter calling people fanbois.
I am not sure what question I am meant to lack an answer to, but approaching important questions from the point of view of morality is what adults are meant to do; it isn't "playing a card."
It absolutely is.
When politicians start to talk about "morality" run for the hills.
The thing that did tickle me the most about yesterday's appearance was this WhatsApp message I received from people who used to work for the Tory party.
Dominic Cummings: Boris Johnson is totally unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
Greg Clark: What's your evidence for that?
Dominic Cummings: Well he employed for me for starters.
In fairness as Foxy suggested yesterday Boris does now have the Trump problem (though nowhere near as severely) of needing to trash his former employee who he praised to all and sundry (and used up lots of political capital to defend, including losing a chancellor over him).
A blow out always looked inevitable between them. If Cummings is to be believed it's amazing it wasnt sooner. So why the heck did Boris not fire him earlier when lots demanded it? Hed cause less damage now if so.
This was inevitable the day Boris Johnson appointed him.
I know several people who have worked in close proximity and pretty much they all think he's the biggest [moderated] in the world, even those who agree with him.
As the old saying goes there's not an apple cart Cummings has seen that he doesn't want to overturn.
He might spot a problem but he tells the people that we've done their entire lives is wrong and worthless and now he wants them to what he tells them, even the face of all the evidence that he is wrong.
Remember in 2010 Michael Gove was made Education Secretary and had a lot of good will in the sector for the changes he wanted to enact but Cummings upset them all and Sir Lynton Crosby persuaded David Cameron to demote Gove in 2014 because Gove's ratings were so poor that it would cost Dave a majority in 2015.
For somebody with a galaxy sized brain Cummings is very poor at people skills and de-escalating things.
Remember you and I have paid out many times for Cummings being a [moderated].
What kind of shit calls armed officers on a defenceless woman? One with issues is my guess.
""police officer stationed at the door of No 10 Downing Street escorted a woman from the front door to exit gates as she did not have a security pass at the time".
About a million miles from "calls armed officers on a defenceless woman"
You complain about Cummings and then post outright lies and you are even too dumb to realise people will check them.
Richard, I know people who saw the incident, there's a reason why the government paid her an out of court settlement.
FYI - The police officers outside Number 10 are armed, they aren't lawn jockeys.
She was paid an out of court settlement because she was unfairly dismissed not because she was escorted to the gate.
Oh and one of my cousins IS one of the protection officers at Downing Street (and other locations)
Even after the settlement she says she was escorted by armed officers, now if that didn't happen the government and their legal team would have insisted in the settlement she shouldn't repeated the allegations, that they didn't speaks volumes.
Of course they were armed. What is a lie is your claim that Cummings "calls armed officers on a defenceless woman"
So I thought I would settle this and just phoned my cousin. Not specifically about this of course as he wasn't involved but about the general policy. Guess what. Every single person without a security pass who enters or leaves the building is escorted in and out. No one is allowed to just wander around without an escort for blindingly obvious reasons.
It is exactly the same as if you are sacked from a company and are escorted off the premises by the security guards. It is a normal part of life and you trying to make it anything more than that just shows how much you are scraping the barrel.
How many security guards at companies in the UK are armed?
Still pursuing this stupid fatuous smear. Just shows how bereft of any real arguments you are.
Of course you are well known for dishonesty in your arguments so it is no surprise.
Vaccine penetration in the 40s is topping out at a disappointing level. Using ONS data, barely any movement week on week for the 45-49s at 82.6% vs 80.7% the week prior. Meanwhile for 40-44s, 82.3% vs 77.1%. During which time 1.1m first doses were given to the under 40s.
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
80-90 is less antivaxxers, more the lazy bunch
I know the ONS pop numbers are flawed but in London it’s in the 70 percents for that age range.
That's pretty decent for London considering how many Londoners are now elsewhere in the country, or in a foreign country.
I am not sure you have got the hang of this polling mullarkey.
If responses are taken a day or two before an event, it is unlikely that the responses will be in relation to the event...unless the respondent is psychic...or from the future.
I only poll people from the future, as their responses are more likely to be useful from a betting perspective.
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
Oh I get it - you're playing the 'morality' card to excuse your lack of answer. Try just considering for a nano second maybe you're wrong and the public have it right. I know it's hard but just ease up on the entitlement syndrome. Footie fans are a laugh a minute - the brain dead are all on twitter calling people fanbois.
I am not sure what question I am meant to lack an answer to, but approaching important questions from the point of view of morality is what adults are meant to do; it isn't "playing a card."
It absolutely is.
When politicians start to talk about "morality" run for the hills.
Ah the outlier corrected - that would be the one that had Labour just the one behind. I guess it's been published to send the anti-boristas into another paroxysmal raging against the machine. BFb.
Jesus. People aren't saying he is electorally unsuccessful, they are saying he is an unprincipled shit. When you hear the tedious expression "worst prime minister since Lord North" do you think the reference is to Lord N's performance in the polls? Are you any different from, or more interesting than, a football supporter whose team is temporarily outperforming other teams?
Oh I get it - you're playing the 'morality' card to excuse your lack of answer. Try just considering for a nano second maybe you're wrong and the public have it right. I know it's hard but just ease up on the entitlement syndrome. Footie fans are a laugh a minute - the brain dead are all on twitter calling people fanbois.
I am not sure what question I am meant to lack an answer to, but approaching important questions from the point of view of morality is what adults are meant to do; it isn't "playing a card."
It absolutely is.
When politicians start to talk about "morality" run for the hills.
Yes. I am not a politician.
Neither was Jerry Falwell Sr.
I don't trust anyone who bangs on about "morality" in the context of politics. Keep your morals to yourself.
Comments
If Johnson denies a second referendum then that helps the Nats which is another problem for Gove.
I think Gove is in the we can win it camp.
This has not been a good day 😢
https://news.sky.com/story/pm-avoids-questions-cummings-allegations-but-suggests-some-claims-arent-based-on-reality-12318296
Given this was like a once in a century calamity, the biggest disaster to befall the world since WWII, the question really is not whether mistakes were made but it's whether the mistakes that have been made were understandable or unreasonable. Would anyone else have done any better?
What would a Corbyn minority government with Lib-Dem, SNP and Green support have done? Personally I doubt Labour would have done much different to the Conservative government.
I will say that with something like this Theresa May might have done quite well. I think her instinct would probably have been to lockdown harder and earlier... But then again who knows how she'd have handled it...
What else do I need? Would it be a good idea to put some cat litter into the boxes? Some of my daughter's hay for her hamster? Or line them with newspaper? Will I need gloves?
What stops the buggers flying off? The girlfriend has a pond and a hutch/hide etc. Help!
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3409734#Comment_3409734
I am not a Johnson apologist. I just react to.continual.oney eyed posts from the left on here. I would vote Tory every time to keep Labour out.
Boris Johnson / Keir Starmer
Net Rating: 4% (+11) / -11% (-7)
Favourable 42% (+4) / 27% (-6)
Neutral 17% (+3) / 26% (+2)
Unfavourable 38% (-7) / 38% (+1)
1,041 respondents, 25-26 May '21. Changes w/ 27-29 April. https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1397923721604583427/photo/1
But if you Conservatives could arrange things so that all the forementioned go, along with Johnson, Princess Nut Nuts and their untrained pooch, and replace thm with honest and competent Conservatives - there must be some, surely - that would be a great step forward.
Personally I get accused by you of being an apologist but have attacked the government on probably dozens of different issues. Most recently the cowardly and farcically slow pace of lifting lockdown.
So I thought I would settle this and just phoned my cousin. Not specifically about this of course as he wasn't involved but about the general policy. Guess what. Every single person without a security pass who enters or leaves the building is escorted in and out. No one is allowed to just wander around without an escort for blindingly obvious reasons.
It is exactly the same as if you are sacked from a company and are escorted off the premises by the security guards. It is a normal part of life and you trying to make it anything more than that just shows how much you are scraping the barrel.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1397924242730016776
Critics say the Government made it worse, fans of the Government say it could have been worse, and the huge majority of people are too wise to commit to either opinion
Cummings promoted Sunak in yesterday's committee session in order to undermine Sunak, by implying he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor in the event of a Sunak premiership, thus scaring off Tory MPs, ensuring Gove becomes PM instead of current favourite Sunak, and he (Cummings) would again become Chief Government Advisor.
Blimey, its hard work keeping up with the mechanics of the Conservative Party.
CON 44% (+6)
LAB 33% (-5)
LD 8% (-)
GRN 6% (+1)
SNP 4% (-1)
OTH 4% (-1)
1,041 respondents, 25-26 May '21. Changes w/ 27-29 April '21.
https://www.survation.com/political-polling-27-may-2021/ https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1397923718597255175/photo/1
Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has increased the pressure on Conservative MP Rob Roberts to resign. He said it would be "honourable" for the Delyn MP to stand down after an investigation found he sexually harassed an employee."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-57267295
NEW @Survation
Poll – Best Prime Minister:
Boris Johnson45% (+4)
Keir Starmer 28% (-5)
Don't know 27% (+1)
1,019 respondents, 25-26 May '21. Changes w/ 27-29 April.
Oh.
Ain't gonna happen...
Michael Dobbs knows what he wrote about.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/using-data-nhs-gdpr
(covers opt outs, uses of the data etc etc)
Opt-in is an appealing idea in some ways, but the fact is that - as with organ donation - a lot of people would simply never get round to it or choose to "decide later" when they've got time to think about it in detail (i.e. never). If you have an opt-in system then the people who get around to opting in will be those with an interest in research or medical conditions - likely a very unrepresentative group. If the data are not representative, then they are largely useless.
I work with rare conditions and have used the hospital data to count how many people have those conditions, something that has directly led to increased government funding to care for those people (as previous estimates, based on surveys and the like, massively underestimated the size of that population - people with rare, severe conditions are hard to reach in surveys because they've got a lot of other shit going on). There's not really any other reasonable way of doing things like that.
As another example, here's a paper that described the problems with metal on metal hip replacements, part of the evidence leading to them being withdrawn and no longer used. Patient data entered in a registry and shared with third parties. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612603535
Unless you want te NHS to run all safety and epidemiological analysis, devoid of outside scrutiny (Mid-Staffs, anyone?) then it's hard to make the argument that NHS data should never be shared with third parties. Requiring opt-in would make the data pretty useless. Allowing opt-out makes the data worse, but I do think that should be an option (as it is) although there is a debate to be had on that too.
Boris 42.47/38.34
Sir Keir 27.38/38.05
"More People Have An Unfavourable Opinion of Boris Johnson than Sir Keir Starmer"
If these silly bastards lead to a winter lockdown I will not be held accountable for my actions.
We're incredibly bad in this country, as NHS Digital, scientists etc in explaining the benefits of using routine data in research. I googled for something along the line of a list of case studies of benefits of the data, but the above just came fom my own knowledge (worked with one of the authors).
There should be an easily accessible list of plain English summaries of what the data have been used for and what the benefits were. We, as scientists, should be required to write them at the end of the data sharing agreement (you get access to the data for a limited period, often ~3 years, after which they are destroyed).
The CPRD (which I have also used, run by MHRA of approving covid vaccines fame) do have something like this, albeit brief. CPRD provide GP data from a sample of practices (about 8% population coverage). The same data that are currently causing the fuss, the main difference being that the new dataset will be near enough 100% population coverage.
Case studies: https://www.cprd.com/CPRDcasestudies
- Higher risks of flu and COVID-19 for cancer survivors
- Safety of the MenB vaccine
- Preventing whooping cough in new-born babies
etc...
We are not back to normal until we stop routine testing and stop panicking when a case is found. If someone gets sick and tests positive, then that guides their treatment. It shouldn’t lead to disruption for anyone they may or may not have come into contact with.
I wonder if people like contrarian have considered that their refusal to take a vaccine increases the likelihood it will be given to millions of children?
https://order-order.com/2021/05/27/poll-carried-out-on-day-of-cummings-committee-shows-5-5-swing-to-tories/
It is, however, sure to do the rounds on Twitter given the jokes yesterday...
So, yes people criticise him personally, but also pour cold water on any acknowledgement that he has done well at all. A bit like when Laurence Fox started being controversial, all the people who disagreed with him started saying he was a bad actor too! It’s the modern mindset, not a nice one - if you disagree politically w someone, they can’t be given credit in any other sphere or the benefit of any doubt. Sad times
On selling individual-level data to commercial entities, I am a bit uneasy. Medical insurance companies for example, are likely to know exactly when you had a hospital admission, where and for what procedure. That could be enough for them to re-identify you from the 'anonymised' data and gain information on your other health conditions/history. Illegal, of course, but still...
Aggregate data are also made available and NHS Digital can run queries for you - i.e. what's the prevalence of condition X in patients with characteristics X, Y and Z. That's fine. I'd be happy to see NHSD have a commercial arm answering those kinds of questions without handing out individual level data.
https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-to-propose-making-hate-speech-a-crime/
If responses are taken a day or two before an event, it is unlikely that the responses will be in relation to the event...unless the respondent is psychic...or from the future.
Would anyone notice the difference?
When politicians start to talk about "morality" run for the hills.
Of course you are well known for dishonesty in your arguments so it is no surprise.
I don't trust anyone who bangs on about "morality" in the context of politics. Keep your morals to yourself.
A lot of this is still localised. Bolton alone had 1,292 cases in the last week; Warrington, only a few miles south, had just 18.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1397938149112881153
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1397931362942951425