Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Reaping the Whirlwind – politicalbetting.com

1457910

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    G7 issue statement on Belarus:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/belarus-g7-foreign-ministers-statement

    While Moscow adds Austrian to airlines its stopping from flying because they won't overfly Belarus:

    https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1397905735397220352?s=20
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    Tinnitus is an odd phenomenon. It’s so subjective.
    From what I understand from my aunt it is a "ringing" in the ears of some kind. But yes it seems to have no definitive form.

    Unless you think it is psychosomatic?
    The Kim Wilde song 'Water On Glass' is about Tinnitus.
    Kim Wilde has songs other than “Kids in America”. Who knew.
    Not her biggest hit surprisingly, biggest hit was a cover of The Supremes' You Keep Me Hanging On.
    "Kids in America" has one of the most vexing lines in popular music: "New York to East California." The geographically awake will notice how irritatingly short that falls of being all-encompassing. Why East California? It's largely desert. West of South would have made so much more sense.
    I think I can speak for a lot of guys when I say that I wasn't focusing on the lyrics.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    meanwhile anybody accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer really should look at the story about a BBC presenter's passing away that is being trumpeted by at least the Mail and the Sun.

    That's anti-Vaxxism, right there.

    Have you taken the vaccine yet? Or are you and @Dura_Ace still flying the flag for antivaxxery on this site?
    To be fair to @Dura_Ace i believe he doesn’t want to take the vaccine because it’s been tested on animals

    That’s a principled position (if wrong headed) and not really “antivaxxery”
    Why is it wrong-headed?

    And what about my example of a 30-yr old with tinnitus when there seems to be strong anecdotal evidence (does such a thing exist?) of the vaccine making it worse?
    Anecdotally covid looks far worse for potential tinnitus than any of the vaccines

    From https://www.tinnitus.org.uk

    A study by audiologists at the University of Manchester found that a significant number of patients reported a deterioration in their hearing after hospitalisation for Covid-19, with 6.6% developing tinnitus.[9]

    This means that fewer than 1 in 11,300 people are affected which classifies this side effect as ‘very rare’[8].

    I think I have some very very mild tinnitus, I can only notice it when I'm actively thinking 'Do I have tinnitus' in a quiet room....
    The pyschoschematic component is large I think.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,096
    edited May 2021

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very stupidly, Waitrose have decided to cease publishing “the Good Food Guide”, which has come out annually for 70 years.

    (Waitrose have owned the brand for 7 years).

    It is/was essentially the only decent guide to eating in this country, at least outside of London.

    Tripadvisor works fine for me when escaping the snooty, sneering cesspit of vice and wokery.
    Tripadvisor is not very useful. You want to go somewhere, it has 99 5-star reviews and you are put off by the one 1-star review (or at least I am).
    But reading the negative reviews is how you find out what the potential problems might be. There are too many fake positive reviews to take much account of the actual scoring.
    TripAdvisor is trash.
    It is the “Daily Mail Comments” of travel review.
    I don't think I could agree less! A balance of TA reviews gives a massively more accurate picture than a glowing review by Sean T or similar who was possibly not incognito and whose every whim was therefore catered to, and is from two years ago. I'm not saying that professional travel journalism isn't worthwhile, enjoyable, and an art form (I love Tanya Gold's restaurant reviews in the Spectator) but it's not a good indication of where to eat or stay in the way that TA, despite its faults, is.
    I am comparing it with the Good Food Guide which never let me down over many years of eating in places like Ludlow, Lanarkshire or Leicester.

    Agree that food journalism is something else altogether.
    Haven't there also been some ructions at the Consumer Association / Which? I think I saw a reference.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    Tinnitus is an odd phenomenon. It’s so subjective.
    From what I understand from my aunt it is a "ringing" in the ears of some kind. But yes it seems to have no definitive form.

    Unless you think it is psychosomatic?
    The Kim Wilde song 'Water On Glass' is about Tinnitus.
    Kim Wilde has songs other than “Kids in America”. Who knew.
    Not her biggest hit surprisingly, biggest hit was a cover of The Supremes' You Keep Me Hanging On.
    "Kids in America" has one of the most vexing lines in popular music: "New York to East California." The geographically awake will notice how irritatingly short that falls of being all-encompassing. Why East California? It's largely desert. West of South would have made so much more sense.
    :lol:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    1 in 11,300 refers to the vaccine.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Floater said:
    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.
    I thought they were asked over the period 25-26 May. ie yesterday and the day before, when the Cummings bombshells were all over the media
    Most of the survey took place before Cumming's testimony and 50% before any of it had been given, wait until Saturday for Opinium which started polling today to see if there has been any impact
    The impact will be negligible IMO

    Whilst SKS is LOTO Boris et al have a free pass
    No alternative Labour leader would make any difference, except maybe Burnham who has said he will not stand for Parliament again until the next general election at the earliest anyway when he could be a contender if Starmer has led Labour to another defeat.

    Otherwise the next general election will be decided about how well the government has managed the economy and general situation post pandemic and post Brexit
    Yes it will.
  • AnExileinD4AnExileinD4 Posts: 337
    edited May 2021

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very stupidly, Waitrose have decided to cease publishing “the Good Food Guide”, which has come out annually for 70 years.

    (Waitrose have owned the brand for 7 years).

    It is/was essentially the only decent guide to eating in this country, at least outside of London.

    Tripadvisor works fine for me when escaping the snooty, sneering cesspit of vice and wokery.
    Tripadvisor is not very useful. You want to go somewhere, it has 99 5-star reviews and you are put off by the one 1-star review (or at least I am).
    But reading the negative reviews is how you find out what the potential problems might be. There are too many fake positive reviews to take much account of the actual scoring.
    TripAdvisor is trash.
    It is the “Daily Mail Comments” of travel review.
    I don't think I could agree less! A balance of TA reviews gives a massively more accurate picture than a glowing review by Sean T or similar who was possibly not incognito and whose every whim was therefore catered to, and is from two years ago. I'm not saying that professional travel journalism isn't worthwhile, enjoyable, and an art form (I love Tanya Gold's restaurant reviews in the Spectator) but it's not a good indication of where to eat or stay in the way that TA, despite its faults, is.
    I am comparing it with the Good Food Guide which never let me down over many years of eating in places like Ludlow, Lanarkshire or Leicester.

    Agree that food journalism is something else altogether.
    Ah, OK. I've not used it - I'll have to check it out. Let us know how you get on in Luton, Llandudno, and Lakenheath. :lol:
    I can almost guarantee to you that Luton and Lakenheath have no entries. :(
    Luton will have Luton Hoo.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    Tinnitus is an odd phenomenon. It’s so subjective.
    From what I understand from my aunt it is a "ringing" in the ears of some kind. But yes it seems to have no definitive form.

    Unless you think it is psychosomatic?
    The Kim Wilde song 'Water On Glass' is about Tinnitus.
    Kim Wilde has songs other than “Kids in America”. Who knew.
    Not her biggest hit surprisingly, biggest hit was a cover of The Supremes' You Keep Me Hanging On.
    "Kids in America" has one of the most vexing lines in popular music: "New York to East California." The geographically awake will notice how irritatingly short that falls of being all-encompassing. Why East California? It's largely desert. West of South would have made so much more sense.
    :lol:
    Makes sense. The song is Kids in America. California is not America to some Americans. :dizzy:
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    meanwhile anybody accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer really should look at the story about a BBC presenter's passing away that is being trumpeted by at least the Mail and the Sun.

    That's anti-Vaxxism, right there.

    Have you taken the vaccine yet? Or are you and @Dura_Ace still flying the flag for antivaxxery on this site?
    To be fair to @Dura_Ace i believe he doesn’t want to take the vaccine because it’s been tested on animals

    That’s a principled position (if wrong headed) and not really “antivaxxery”
    Why is it wrong-headed?

    And what about my example of a 30-yr old with tinnitus when there seems to be strong anecdotal evidence (does such a thing exist?) of the vaccine making it worse?
    Anecdotally covid looks far worse for potential tinnitus than any of the vaccines

    From https://www.tinnitus.org.uk

    A study by audiologists at the University of Manchester found that a significant number of patients reported a deterioration in their hearing after hospitalisation for Covid-19, with 6.6% developing tinnitus.[9]

    This means that fewer than 1 in 11,300 people are affected which classifies this side effect as ‘very rare’[8].

    I think I have some very very mild tinnitus, I can only notice it when I'm actively thinking 'Do I have tinnitus' in a quiet room....
    The pyschoschematic component is large I think.

    Wasn't it deterioration or development. I speed read it.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    kle4 said:

    "The European Commission has threatened to delay the launch of the EU’s R&D scheme Horizon Europe unless member countries accept its plan to limit the participation of the UK, Israel and Switzerland in sensitive technology projects, according to diplomats."

    https://twitter.com/gallardo_ortega/status/1397976017067823112

    Well, their scheme their rules I guess, though it seems a bit self defeating and an example of the kind of nationalistic approach I thought they did not like.
    How long until we have to start speaking about the "Little EU" mentality infecting the bureaucrats of the EU?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    "The European Commission has threatened to delay the launch of the EU’s R&D scheme Horizon Europe unless member countries accept its plan to limit the participation of the UK, Israel and Switzerland in sensitive technology projects, according to diplomats."

    https://twitter.com/gallardo_ortega/status/1397976017067823112

    Well, you can see why. One of those states is a dangerous organisation outside international norms, that facilitates terrorism using deniable money far beyond its borders, arms all its citizens because it perceives a threat from its neighbours, and is officially multi-ethnic but in practice dominated by one grouping.

    And it’s not like Israel and the UK are exactly squeaky clean either.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Tbh if everyone took Contrarian's take on the vaccines there'd be far less tinnitus as noone would ever be able to attend live music ever again.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    As it's Thursday, my weekly look at the vaccination programme in Newham and how we are progressing.

    Among all those over 40 (153,574 people), 98,750 have received a first vaccination and of those 51, 195 have now received both vaccinations.

    That means 64.3% of over 40s have received their first vaccination and a third of all adults over 40 have now received both vaccinations.

    Put another way, there are more than 50,000 people in Newham aged 40 or older who have not been vaccinated.

    Among those aged over 70 (17,753 people), 14,286 have received a first vaccination and of those 12,885 have received both vaccinations. 80.2% of over 70s have had one vaccination and 72.6% have had both.

    It looks as though 20% of Newham's over-70s are refusing the vaccination which is roughly 3,500 people. That's within the larger group of 50,000 over-40s who have not had a first vaccine.

    To contrast, in Sutton, there are 109,269 people aged 40 or over. Of these, 91,514 have received a first vaccination (83.75%) and of those 56,335 (51.6%) have received both vaccinations.

    Those figures are stark - among over 40s, Newham has 64.3% with first vaccinations while Sutton is at 83.7% and among those with both vaccinations, Newham has a third while Sutton has more than a half.

    There's still a long way to go.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
  • A question for PB Brains Trust please.

    Someone I know has come to me for advice following getting a letter inviting them in for a for a sickness/absence meeting. New manager who has just has sent one to pretty much everyone in the company it seems, for absences under the old manager before they were even hired. This is done on a "Bradford Factor" threshold.

    The letter includes an absence record for the past 12 months including: an isolation for Covid symptoms pending a negative test, an authorised absence for a death in the family, an authorised absence for a funeral following that death, and a 7 work day absence following a Covid positive test result. These details, including that its authorised absence for a funeral, are included in the absence record accompanying the letter. Had the Covid absences not been included, or the death and funeral absence, then there are next-to-no absences and the Bradford Factor score would be nowhere close to the threshold. By my maths they've counted the death and authorised absence for a funeral as two separate instances of absence too.

    I doubt the manager has even looked at their specific record and its just been computer automated, which is not good management in my eyes - but is it legal to discipline people for being off following a Covid positive test? Or an authorised absence for a funeral? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

    Get a union rep in. If not in union then get in touch with an employment lawyer. Typical gobshite new manager straight from training. When I worked for a certain telecom company and we got a new management shithouse in throwing their weight around in their new shitty suit I would respond to every management meeting request with “I will see when I can get a rep in”. Given I was the only member on site the rep would have to come from elsewhere. They would try and wheedle me in to the office but I would refuse and tell them they were trying to bully me.
    They, without exception, gave up and picked on someone else instead.
    Never, ever, be outnumbered in your bosses office.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    NEW: B.1617.2 is fuelling a third wave in the UK, with not only cases but also hospital admissions rising.

    Vaccines will make this wave different to those that have come before, but it remains a concern, and one that other countries will soon face.

    Thread on everything we know:


    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1397995388267810818?s=20
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286

    TOPPING said:

    ping said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    Tinnitus is an odd phenomenon. It’s so subjective.
    From what I understand from my aunt it is a "ringing" in the ears of some kind. But yes it seems to have no definitive form.

    Unless you think it is psychosomatic?
    The Kim Wilde song 'Water On Glass' is about Tinnitus.
    Kim Wilde has songs other than “Kids in America”. Who knew.
    Are you joking? From memory:

    Chequered Love
    Water On Glass
    Cambodia
    View From A Bridge
    Love Blonde
    The Touch
    The Second Time
    You Keep Me Hanging On
    You Came
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Hancock really can't help himself when it comes to massive exaggeration

    https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1397857619029774336
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,275
    Charles said:

    meanwhile anybody accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer really should look at the story about a BBC presenter's passing away that is being trumpeted by at least the Mail and the Sun.

    That's anti-Vaxxism, right there.

    Have you taken the vaccine yet? Or are you and @Dura_Ace still flying the flag for antivaxxery on this site?
    To be fair to @Dura_Ace i believe he doesn’t want to take the vaccine because it’s been tested on animals

    That’s a principled position (if wrong headed) and not really “antivaxxery”
    It's still anti-vaxxery
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited May 2021

    A question for PB Brains Trust please.

    Someone I know has come to me for advice following getting a letter inviting them in for a for a sickness/absence meeting. New manager who has just has sent one to pretty much everyone in the company it seems, for absences under the old manager before they were even hired. This is done on a "Bradford Factor" threshold.

    The letter includes an absence record for the past 12 months including: an isolation for Covid symptoms pending a negative test, an authorised absence for a death in the family, an authorised absence for a funeral following that death, and a 7 work day absence following a Covid positive test result. These details, including that its authorised absence for a funeral, are included in the absence record accompanying the letter. Had the Covid absences not been included, or the death and funeral absence, then there are next-to-no absences and the Bradford Factor score would be nowhere close to the threshold. By my maths they've counted the death and authorised absence for a funeral as two separate instances of absence too.

    I doubt the manager has even looked at their specific record and its just been computer automated, which is not good management in my eyes - but is it legal to discipline people for being off following a Covid positive test? Or an authorised absence for a funeral? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

    Get a union rep in. If not in union then get in touch with an employment lawyer. Typical gobshite new manager straight from training. When I worked for a certain telecom company and we got a new management shithouse in throwing their weight around in their new shitty suit I would respond to every management meeting request with “I will see when I can get a rep in”. Given I was the only member on site the rep would have to come from elsewhere. They would try and wheedle me in to the office but I would refuse and tell them they were trying to bully me.
    They, without exception, gave up and picked on someone else instead.
    Never, ever, be outnumbered in your bosses office.
    Some schools have been trying to include periods of isolation as sick leave. I know this because I have been bombarded with warnings about it from my union. (My school didn’t, by the way.)

    It’s a pretty outrageous thing to do, however you look at it, but I think the key thing it shows is our laws on sickness and particularly pay and discipline are totally unfit for purpose.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286

    NEW: George Galloway confirms he's standing in the Batley and Spen by-election with the explicit purpose of ousting Keir Starmer: "If for whatever reason you think that the current leader of the Labour party needs to be replaced, I'm your man."

    Potentially problematic for Labour

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1397979113802153989

    Bad news for the Tories surely. If you want rid of Starmer then vote Tory.
    Not many Tories will vote Galloway. More likely to supported by Labour voters.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Starmer:

    We have the worst death toll in Europe and tens of thousands of people have died unnecessarily.

    Families who have lost loved ones need answers.

    We need the public inquiry into how the Government handled Covid to start this summer.


    Michael Crick:

    Is that death toll per head?

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1397993216083959819?s=20

    This lazy line needs to be called out more often.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Pulpstar said:

    Tbh if everyone took Contrarian's take on the vaccines there'd be far less tinnitus as noone would ever be able to attend live music ever again.

    A legal restriction, unprecedented legal restrictions, to achieve a public health outcome.
  • gealbhan said:

    TOPPING said:

    gealbhan said:

    FF43 said:

    dixiedean said:

    There's a perception amongst its opponents that this Government is ideological and very right-wing.

    In fact, the reason it's polling so well is that it's positioned itself slap-bang in the centre of where public opinion is across the country at large.

    That's not the same as the chatterati, but it doesn't make it untrue.

    Excellent post. Very true.

    It’s the most leftwing Tory government since the 1970s, and possibly before.

    I keep repeating this to my chattering class friends!
    Tory is superfluous in that piece.
    The PM reminds me most of Wilson of all his predecessors.
    Master of public persona, political tactics and communication.
    Long term ideas to build a better future?
    Not so much.
    Wilson left almost no legacy except a few catchphrases, an iconic image (the pipe, though apparently he did not much smoke in real life), and an unreformed and latently bankrupt British state.
    Harold Wilson kept Britain out of the Vietnam war when I think most British PMs would have signed up with enthusiasm. Not leaving a legacy is absolutely fine, as he made the right call at the right time.
    Wilson was more than happy to see the whole world turn Communist, and not lift a finger to stop it.
    Yes because the Vietnam war, with its total victory for the US and its allies, kicked the communists out of south east asia decisively.
    You lose some you win some, but surely it can only be historically measured on were you trying to do the right thing?

    Is there no one else on PB who would have supported a British Prime minister standing shoulder to shoulder with their Australian and US counterparts in confronting the insidious communist empire building?
    Nope. Two reasons.
    1) US foreign policy is always wrong. The USA probably doesn’t need to engage with the rest of the world outside trade. Keep clear of “foreign entanglements”.
    2) It was the French’ fault. Let them deal with it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited May 2021
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    As long as they don’t stop us from selling it in shoes, I can’t see a problem.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your positon is much more extreme than you make out.
    I support the legalisation of drugs. How is that extreme?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Andy_JS said:

    NEW: George Galloway confirms he's standing in the Batley and Spen by-election with the explicit purpose of ousting Keir Starmer: "If for whatever reason you think that the current leader of the Labour party needs to be replaced, I'm your man."

    Potentially problematic for Labour

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1397979113802153989

    Bad news for the Tories surely. If you want rid of Starmer then vote Tory.
    Not many Tories will vote Galloway. More likely to supported by Labour voters.
    Tories don't just need Tory votes to win though. They need to win eg ex-UKIP/BXP/Heavy Woolen votes too.

    Galloway could be a receptacle for the Heavy Woolen style votes.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
    Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286

    Starmer:

    We have the worst death toll in Europe and tens of thousands of people have died unnecessarily.

    Families who have lost loved ones need answers.

    We need the public inquiry into how the Government handled Covid to start this summer.


    Michael Crick:

    Is that death toll per head?

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1397993216083959819?s=20

    This lazy line needs to be called out more often.

    The UK isn't even in the top 15 per head.

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,753

    Andy_JS said:

    NEW: George Galloway confirms he's standing in the Batley and Spen by-election with the explicit purpose of ousting Keir Starmer: "If for whatever reason you think that the current leader of the Labour party needs to be replaced, I'm your man."

    Potentially problematic for Labour

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1397979113802153989

    Bad news for the Tories surely. If you want rid of Starmer then vote Tory.
    Not many Tories will vote Galloway. More likely to supported by Labour voters.
    Tories don't just need Tory votes to win though. They need to win eg ex-UKIP/BXP/Heavy Woolen votes too.

    Galloway could be a receptacle for the Heavy Woolen style votes.
    I’d imagine his paltry number of votes in Scotland consisted of a few of those types.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your positon is much more extreme than you make out.
    I support the legalisation of drugs. How is that extreme?
    Retail sales without prescription?

    How about your right to eat in whatever restaurant you want without some health and safety busybody checking their kitchen?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    That's because we're scared of Topping - unlike our vaccinators, he's actually trained to kill people with a single jab.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    The collolory of supporting antivax guff and no legal restrictions is de facto swamping of the NHS.
    I've had to use it a few times recently and was very glad the system wasn't bursting at the seems with Covid cases
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited May 2021

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your positon is much more extreme than you make out.
    I support the legalisation of drugs. How is that extreme?
    Retail sales without prescription?

    How about your right to eat in whatever restaurant you want without some health and safety busybody checking their kitchen?
    Oh blimey. So you're making the rules. I just said I support the legalisation of drugs. We can have a discussion about what that means.

    And I love street food. All over the world.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    stodge said:

    As it's Thursday, my weekly look at the vaccination programme in Newham and how we are progressing.

    Among all those over 40 (153,574 people), 98,750 have received a first vaccination and of those 51, 195 have now received both vaccinations.

    That means 64.3% of over 40s have received their first vaccination and a third of all adults over 40 have now received both vaccinations.

    Put another way, there are more than 50,000 people in Newham aged 40 or older who have not been vaccinated.

    Among those aged over 70 (17,753 people), 14,286 have received a first vaccination and of those 12,885 have received both vaccinations. 80.2% of over 70s have had one vaccination and 72.6% have had both.

    It looks as though 20% of Newham's over-70s are refusing the vaccination which is roughly 3,500 people. That's within the larger group of 50,000 over-40s who have not had a first vaccine.

    To contrast, in Sutton, there are 109,269 people aged 40 or over. Of these, 91,514 have received a first vaccination (83.75%) and of those 56,335 (51.6%) have received both vaccinations.

    Those figures are stark - among over 40s, Newham has 64.3% with first vaccinations while Sutton is at 83.7% and among those with both vaccinations, Newham has a third while Sutton has more than a half.

    There's still a long way to go.

    If people in Newham don't want to get vaccinated despite being offered it, that's their problem, and can't be allowed to become a problem for the rest of the country.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Pulpstar said:

    The collolory of supporting antivax guff and no legal restrictions is de facto swamping of the NHS.
    I've had to use it a few times recently and was very glad the system wasn't bursting at the seems with Covid cases

    Of course plenty have had surgery put back and so forth still. It's just not right to be as selfish as some wrt getting vaccinated
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    That's because we're scared of Topping - unlike our vaccinators, he's actually trained to kill people with a single jab.
    From my adapted umbrella.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Pulpstar said:

    The collolory of supporting antivax guff and no legal restrictions is de facto swamping of the NHS.
    I've had to use it a few times recently and was very glad the system wasn't bursting at the seems with Covid cases

    As I said, you support severe legal restrictions to achieve a public health outcome. At least you are out and proud about it.

    I don't.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
    Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
    Yep. The sale of a properly regulated drug with the same quality controls as apply to any other drug available through a retail outlet should not be considered an extreme position.

    An extreme position would be to accept the sale of an entirely unregulated drug with no quality control, cut with all manner of poisons like strychnine. Which as it happens is what we have right now.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    Andy_JS said:

    NEW: George Galloway confirms he's standing in the Batley and Spen by-election with the explicit purpose of ousting Keir Starmer: "If for whatever reason you think that the current leader of the Labour party needs to be replaced, I'm your man."

    Potentially problematic for Labour

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1397979113802153989

    Bad news for the Tories surely. If you want rid of Starmer then vote Tory.
    Not many Tories will vote Galloway. More likely to supported by Labour voters.
    Tories don't just need Tory votes to win though. They need to win eg ex-UKIP/BXP/Heavy Woolen votes too.

    Galloway could be a receptacle for the Heavy Woolen style votes.
    I think that a fair point.

    However, Galloway has stated he is standing to elect a Conservative MP in order to have Starmer replaced by someone as equally mindless as he (Galloway) is. (My precis).
  • ydoethur said:

    A question for PB Brains Trust please.

    Someone I know has come to me for advice following getting a letter inviting them in for a for a sickness/absence meeting. New manager who has just has sent one to pretty much everyone in the company it seems, for absences under the old manager before they were even hired. This is done on a "Bradford Factor" threshold.

    The letter includes an absence record for the past 12 months including: an isolation for Covid symptoms pending a negative test, an authorised absence for a death in the family, an authorised absence for a funeral following that death, and a 7 work day absence following a Covid positive test result. These details, including that its authorised absence for a funeral, are included in the absence record accompanying the letter. Had the Covid absences not been included, or the death and funeral absence, then there are next-to-no absences and the Bradford Factor score would be nowhere close to the threshold. By my maths they've counted the death and authorised absence for a funeral as two separate instances of absence too.

    I doubt the manager has even looked at their specific record and its just been computer automated, which is not good management in my eyes - but is it legal to discipline people for being off following a Covid positive test? Or an authorised absence for a funeral? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

    Get a union rep in. If not in union then get in touch with an employment lawyer. Typical gobshite new manager straight from training. When I worked for a certain telecom company and we got a new management shithouse in throwing their weight around in their new shitty suit I would respond to every management meeting request with “I will see when I can get a rep in”. Given I was the only member on site the rep would have to come from elsewhere. They would try and wheedle me in to the office but I would refuse and tell them they were trying to bully me.
    They, without exception, gave up and picked on someone else instead.
    Never, ever, be outnumbered in your bosses office.
    Some schools have been trying to include periods of isolation as sick leave. I know this because I have been bombarded with warnings about it from my union. (My school didn’t, by the way.)

    It’s a pretty outrageous thing to do, however you look at it, but I think the key thing it shows is our laws on sickness and particularly pay and discipline are totally unfit for purpose.
    Disgraceful.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Andy_JS said:

    stodge said:

    As it's Thursday, my weekly look at the vaccination programme in Newham and how we are progressing.

    Among all those over 40 (153,574 people), 98,750 have received a first vaccination and of those 51, 195 have now received both vaccinations.

    That means 64.3% of over 40s have received their first vaccination and a third of all adults over 40 have now received both vaccinations.

    Put another way, there are more than 50,000 people in Newham aged 40 or older who have not been vaccinated.

    Among those aged over 70 (17,753 people), 14,286 have received a first vaccination and of those 12,885 have received both vaccinations. 80.2% of over 70s have had one vaccination and 72.6% have had both.

    It looks as though 20% of Newham's over-70s are refusing the vaccination which is roughly 3,500 people. That's within the larger group of 50,000 over-40s who have not had a first vaccine.

    To contrast, in Sutton, there are 109,269 people aged 40 or over. Of these, 91,514 have received a first vaccination (83.75%) and of those 56,335 (51.6%) have received both vaccinations.

    Those figures are stark - among over 40s, Newham has 64.3% with first vaccinations while Sutton is at 83.7% and among those with both vaccinations, Newham has a third while Sutton has more than a half.

    There's still a long way to go.

    If people in Newham don't want to get vaccinated despite being offered it, that's their problem, and can't be allowed to become a problem for the rest of the country.
    Do you suppose that Public Health England will see it like that? We have told the government that we are in favour of national lockdowns. Just in case.
  • AnExileinD4AnExileinD4 Posts: 337
    Andy_JS said:

    stodge said:

    As it's Thursday, my weekly look at the vaccination programme in Newham and how we are progressing.

    Among all those over 40 (153,574 people), 98,750 have received a first vaccination and of those 51, 195 have now received both vaccinations.

    That means 64.3% of over 40s have received their first vaccination and a third of all adults over 40 have now received both vaccinations.

    Put another way, there are more than 50,000 people in Newham aged 40 or older who have not been vaccinated.

    Among those aged over 70 (17,753 people), 14,286 have received a first vaccination and of those 12,885 have received both vaccinations. 80.2% of over 70s have had one vaccination and 72.6% have had both.

    It looks as though 20% of Newham's over-70s are refusing the vaccination which is roughly 3,500 people. That's within the larger group of 50,000 over-40s who have not had a first vaccine.

    To contrast, in Sutton, there are 109,269 people aged 40 or over. Of these, 91,514 have received a first vaccination (83.75%) and of those 56,335 (51.6%) have received both vaccinations.

    Those figures are stark - among over 40s, Newham has 64.3% with first vaccinations while Sutton is at 83.7% and among those with both vaccinations, Newham has a third while Sutton has more than a half.

    There's still a long way to go.

    If people in Newham don't want to get vaccinated despite being offered it, that's their problem, and can't be allowed to become a problem for the rest of the country.
    The risk is one of adverse social consequences as a result given vaccine refusal seems to have a huge ethnicity component, I favour walling in places like Leicester.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited May 2021

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
    Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
    Yep. The sale of a properly regulated drug with the same quality controls as apply to any other drug available through a retail outlet should not be considered an extreme position.
    And educational programmes.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your positon is much more extreme than you make out.
    I support the legalisation of drugs. How is that extreme?
    Retail sales without prescription?

    How about your right to eat in whatever restaurant you want without some health and safety busybody checking their kitchen?
    Oh blimey. So you're making the rules. I just said I support the legalisation of drugs. We can have a discussion about what that means.

    And I love street food. All over the world.
    The point is that it’s disingenuous to pretend that restrictions on personal liberty for the sake of public health are unprecedented or outside the prevailing consensus.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Starmer:

    We have the worst death toll in Europe and tens of thousands of people have died unnecessarily.

    Families who have lost loved ones need answers.

    We need the public inquiry into how the Government handled Covid to start this summer.


    Michael Crick:

    Is that death toll per head?

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1397993216083959819?s=20

    This lazy line needs to be called out more often.

    'One of the worst' would need to be the case soon in any case, but I feel like it could rebound if it is the choice. In not that long then just on the official numbers of all concerned the UK's will be, say, 7th worst toll in the world and 3rd worst in Europe (depending if you count Russia), which will make for a damning attach, but France and Germany will be 4th and 5th in Europe and 8th and 9th in the world.

    We shouldn't, but people are comparing their nations against each other, especially ones close by, and aside from other measures probably being a better indicator, total deaths may make things easier for the government, as by the opposition's chosen method we'd only be marginally worse than Germany, for example, when per head it looks very different.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Andy_JS said:

    NEW: George Galloway confirms he's standing in the Batley and Spen by-election with the explicit purpose of ousting Keir Starmer: "If for whatever reason you think that the current leader of the Labour party needs to be replaced, I'm your man."

    Potentially problematic for Labour

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1397979113802153989

    Bad news for the Tories surely. If you want rid of Starmer then vote Tory.
    Not many Tories will vote Galloway. More likely to supported by Labour voters.
    Tories don't just need Tory votes to win though. They need to win eg ex-UKIP/BXP/Heavy Woolen votes too.

    Galloway could be a receptacle for the Heavy Woolen style votes.
    I think that a fair point.

    However, Galloway has stated he is standing to elect a Conservative MP in order to have Starmer replaced by someone as equally mindless as he (Galloway) is. (My precis).
    Even remembering that Burgon is still in it, there is nobody so mindless as George Galloway in the current PLP.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Andy_JS said:

    stodge said:

    As it's Thursday, my weekly look at the vaccination programme in Newham and how we are progressing.

    Among all those over 40 (153,574 people), 98,750 have received a first vaccination and of those 51, 195 have now received both vaccinations.

    That means 64.3% of over 40s have received their first vaccination and a third of all adults over 40 have now received both vaccinations.

    Put another way, there are more than 50,000 people in Newham aged 40 or older who have not been vaccinated.

    Among those aged over 70 (17,753 people), 14,286 have received a first vaccination and of those 12,885 have received both vaccinations. 80.2% of over 70s have had one vaccination and 72.6% have had both.

    It looks as though 20% of Newham's over-70s are refusing the vaccination which is roughly 3,500 people. That's within the larger group of 50,000 over-40s who have not had a first vaccine.

    To contrast, in Sutton, there are 109,269 people aged 40 or over. Of these, 91,514 have received a first vaccination (83.75%) and of those 56,335 (51.6%) have received both vaccinations.

    Those figures are stark - among over 40s, Newham has 64.3% with first vaccinations while Sutton is at 83.7% and among those with both vaccinations, Newham has a third while Sutton has more than a half.

    There's still a long way to go.

    If people in Newham don't want to get vaccinated despite being offered it, that's their problem, and can't be allowed to become a problem for the rest of the country.
    Well it is our problem too, but there's a point where its unreasonable to let their choices hold everyone back, not least since it may not be possible to reach somewhere cloer to parity.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your positon is much more extreme than you make out.
    I support the legalisation of drugs. How is that extreme?
    Retail sales without prescription?

    How about your right to eat in whatever restaurant you want without some health and safety busybody checking their kitchen?
    Oh blimey. So you're making the rules. I just said I support the legalisation of drugs. We can have a discussion about what that means.

    And I love street food. All over the world.
    The point is that it’s disingenuous to pretend that restrictions on personal liberty for the sake of public health are unprecedented or outside the prevailing consensus.
    I think there is an intersection with human rights. When the government legislates about who you can have sex with and people are scrabbling to find the public health UN exemption on human rights then we are pretty much in unprecedented territory.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    kle4 said:

    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.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54929809
    You see you can't even be honest about this.


    ""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.
    I see you haven't answered my question. I think we know who the bereft one is in this discussion, and it isn't me.

    I note the chap you're defending admitted dishonesty yesterday.
    Indeed he did. Doesn't change the fact you are making stuff up about him just as you do regularly when you are finding it difficult to find a valid argument.

    I sometimes start to wonder just how bright you really are given how quickly you fall back on failed arguments and smears rather than actually dealing with issues at hand.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,937
    ydoethur said:

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
    I'm not sure I've seen anyone "who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive". The other way round seems common enough though.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    stodge said:

    As it's Thursday, my weekly look at the vaccination programme in Newham and how we are progressing.

    Among all those over 40 (153,574 people), 98,750 have received a first vaccination and of those 51, 195 have now received both vaccinations.

    That means 64.3% of over 40s have received their first vaccination and a third of all adults over 40 have now received both vaccinations.

    Put another way, there are more than 50,000 people in Newham aged 40 or older who have not been vaccinated.

    Among those aged over 70 (17,753 people), 14,286 have received a first vaccination and of those 12,885 have received both vaccinations. 80.2% of over 70s have had one vaccination and 72.6% have had both.

    It looks as though 20% of Newham's over-70s are refusing the vaccination which is roughly 3,500 people. That's within the larger group of 50,000 over-40s who have not had a first vaccine.

    To contrast, in Sutton, there are 109,269 people aged 40 or over. Of these, 91,514 have received a first vaccination (83.75%) and of those 56,335 (51.6%) have received both vaccinations.

    Those figures are stark - among over 40s, Newham has 64.3% with first vaccinations while Sutton is at 83.7% and among those with both vaccinations, Newham has a third while Sutton has more than a half.

    There's still a long way to go.

    If people in Newham don't want to get vaccinated despite being offered it, that's their problem, and can't be allowed to become a problem for the rest of the country.
    Well it is our problem too, but there's a point where its unreasonable to let their choices hold everyone back, not least since it may not be possible to reach somewhere cloer to parity.
    You can bet it will be our problem.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Once we're into the "mopping up" (Offered to all over 18s) more no questions, no NHS number required 'vaccine buses' will be a good idea as there's - let's be honest - people who don't want to be 'found' here for whatever reason.
    Even if these people only get 1 dose that's still better than nothing.
    Places like central Manchester, Newham, Ladywood, Tower Hamlets
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    ydoethur said:

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
    I'm not sure I've seen anyone "who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive". The other way round seems common enough though.
    The other way around is more reasonable. Respect is hard won but easily lost.

    As it happens I agree with probably about 90% of what he said, but think he exaggerated some points because he's bitter.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    ydoethur said:

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
    I'm not sure I've seen anyone "who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive". The other way round seems common enough though.
    Yep. Plenty of people who were willing to look the other way when Cummings was their boy who are now happy to highlight his failings now he has revealed just how chaotic and dysfunctional the Government really is.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    TOPPING said:

    It has come to a pretty pass when we are pinning our hopes on Steve Baker.

    But I think the difficulty for some on this board is that after enthusiastically embracing the restrictions for so long and not minding, indeed ridiculing that they crossed some peoples' red lines they are now screaming blue murder when the restrictions cross their own red lines.

    The vast majority on here did a deal with the Devil by exchanging their liberties for safety.

    Now many feel 'safe' they want their liberties back.

    They are not getting them, and the NHS swan dive with regard to everything but COVID means that the 'safety' they got in exchange is a mirage too.

    They, along with vast numbers of Brits have allowed themselves to be spectacularly f8cked.

    Ben Franklin's towering comments are echoing down the centuries.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
    Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
    Heroin is still used clinically, but I think only in end of life situations where you are not going to worry about side effects. I'm surprised it was sold over the counter as it has been a recreational drug since at least the 1920's.

    Heroin was a Bayer trademark, along with Aspirin another Bayer painkiller.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    OT. Interesting documentary on the Soho bomber on Netflix. It's called 'Nail Bomber' If Richard Tyndall is here he'll be interested. There's plenty of John Tyndall in it who I remember you saying is a relative. Interesting how things have changed in the last 20 years. The Admiral Duncan was 54 Old Compton St my flat was 55 though I was on the other side of the road.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The collolory of supporting antivax guff and no legal restrictions is de facto swamping of the NHS.
    I've had to use it a few times recently and was very glad the system wasn't bursting at the seems with Covid cases

    As I said, you support severe legal restrictions to achieve a public health outcome. At least you are out and proud about it.

    I don't.
    I'm in favour of vaccinations so we don't have to choose between crashing the NHS and indoor gigs being gone forever.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited May 2021

    TOPPING said:

    It has come to a pretty pass when we are pinning our hopes on Steve Baker.

    But I think the difficulty for some on this board is that after enthusiastically embracing the restrictions for so long and not minding, indeed ridiculing that they crossed some peoples' red lines they are now screaming blue murder when the restrictions cross their own red lines.

    The vast majority on here did a deal with the Devil by exchanging their liberties for safety.

    Now many feel 'safe' they want their liberties back.

    They are not getting them, and the NHS swan dive with regard to everything but COVID means that the 'safety' they got in exchange is a mirage too.

    They, along with vast numbers of Brits have allowed themselves to be spectacularly f8cked.

    Ben Franklin's towering comments are echoing down the centuries.
    His comments occur to me many times a day on PB.

    I have pondered them because surely such a trite, historic saying can't be bang on the money.

    But it is.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,275
    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
    Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
    Heroin is still used clinically, but I think only in end of life situations where you are not going to worry about side effects. I'm surprised it was sold over the counter as it has been a recreational drug since at least the 1920's.

    Heroin was a Bayer trademark, along with Aspirin another Bayer painkiller.
    Heroin should be freely handed out to old people. It would make their lives infinitely nicer
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    ydoethur said:

    A question for PB Brains Trust please.

    Someone I know has come to me for advice following getting a letter inviting them in for a for a sickness/absence meeting. New manager who has just has sent one to pretty much everyone in the company it seems, for absences under the old manager before they were even hired. This is done on a "Bradford Factor" threshold.

    The letter includes an absence record for the past 12 months including: an isolation for Covid symptoms pending a negative test, an authorised absence for a death in the family, an authorised absence for a funeral following that death, and a 7 work day absence following a Covid positive test result. These details, including that its authorised absence for a funeral, are included in the absence record accompanying the letter. Had the Covid absences not been included, or the death and funeral absence, then there are next-to-no absences and the Bradford Factor score would be nowhere close to the threshold. By my maths they've counted the death and authorised absence for a funeral as two separate instances of absence too.

    I doubt the manager has even looked at their specific record and its just been computer automated, which is not good management in my eyes - but is it legal to discipline people for being off following a Covid positive test? Or an authorised absence for a funeral? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

    Get a union rep in. If not in union then get in touch with an employment lawyer. Typical gobshite new manager straight from training. When I worked for a certain telecom company and we got a new management shithouse in throwing their weight around in their new shitty suit I would respond to every management meeting request with “I will see when I can get a rep in”. Given I was the only member on site the rep would have to come from elsewhere. They would try and wheedle me in to the office but I would refuse and tell them they were trying to bully me.
    They, without exception, gave up and picked on someone else instead.
    Never, ever, be outnumbered in your bosses office.
    Some schools have been trying to include periods of isolation as sick leave. I know this because I have been bombarded with warnings about it from my union. (My school didn’t, by the way.)

    It’s a pretty outrageous thing to do, however you look at it, but I think the key thing it shows is our laws on sickness and particularly pay and discipline are totally unfit for purpose.
    Disgraceful.
    Not just schools. There have been lots of companies doing similar. I can see a lot of tribunals coming up once the dust has settled a bit.

    One very large food manufacturer in Newark told all its workers that once the crisis was over there would probably have to be redundancies and that anyone who had self isolated during lockdown would be at the top of the list. They also brought in workers from Leicester when that city was in local lockdown to fill spaces in their Newark factory. And subsequently had a big outbreak.
  • ydoethur said:

    A question for PB Brains Trust please.

    Someone I know has come to me for advice following getting a letter inviting them in for a for a sickness/absence meeting. New manager who has just has sent one to pretty much everyone in the company it seems, for absences under the old manager before they were even hired. This is done on a "Bradford Factor" threshold.

    The letter includes an absence record for the past 12 months including: an isolation for Covid symptoms pending a negative test, an authorised absence for a death in the family, an authorised absence for a funeral following that death, and a 7 work day absence following a Covid positive test result. These details, including that its authorised absence for a funeral, are included in the absence record accompanying the letter. Had the Covid absences not been included, or the death and funeral absence, then there are next-to-no absences and the Bradford Factor score would be nowhere close to the threshold. By my maths they've counted the death and authorised absence for a funeral as two separate instances of absence too.

    I doubt the manager has even looked at their specific record and its just been computer automated, which is not good management in my eyes - but is it legal to discipline people for being off following a Covid positive test? Or an authorised absence for a funeral? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

    Get a union rep in. If not in union then get in touch with an employment lawyer. Typical gobshite new manager straight from training. When I worked for a certain telecom company and we got a new management shithouse in throwing their weight around in their new shitty suit I would respond to every management meeting request with “I will see when I can get a rep in”. Given I was the only member on site the rep would have to come from elsewhere. They would try and wheedle me in to the office but I would refuse and tell them they were trying to bully me.
    They, without exception, gave up and picked on someone else instead.
    Never, ever, be outnumbered in your bosses office.
    Some schools have been trying to include periods of isolation as sick leave. I know this because I have been bombarded with warnings about it from my union. (My school didn’t, by the way.)

    It’s a pretty outrageous thing to do, however you look at it, but I think the key thing it shows is our laws on sickness and particularly pay and discipline are totally unfit for purpose.
    Disgraceful.
    Not just schools. There have been lots of companies doing similar. I can see a lot of tribunals coming up once the dust has settled a bit.

    One very large food manufacturer in Newark told all its workers that once the crisis was over there would probably have to be redundancies and that anyone who had self isolated during lockdown would be at the top of the list. They also brought in workers from Leicester when that city was in local lockdown to fill spaces in their Newark factory. And subsequently had a big outbreak.
    A bit of national publicity and a boycott would give those scumbags a slap round the head.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,275
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
    Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
    That's not true
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    John Burn-Murdoch
    @jburnmurdoch
    NEW: B.1617.2 is fuelling a third wave in the UK, with not only cases but also hospital admissions rising.

    Vaccines will make this wave different to those that have come before, but it remains a concern, and one that other countries will soon face.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1397995388267810818
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Mary Mallon could have told you that restrictions on individual liberties (in her case, banning her from following her only career) to achieve a public health objective has been around for a very long time indeed.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    Taz said:

    Apparently Peter Kelner posted this. V interesting.


    How is he defining progressive parties ?
    Presumably the major left wing party. Labour, in the UK’s case. It seems to scan.
    That's a bit arbitrary. As Stodge's post demonstrates, in PR the centre-left splinters, and you get to choose between varieties, but the total left of centre often holds up well. The wild card is many countries is the Greens, who draw anti-establishment votes predominantly from the left even when, as in Germany, they aren't very left-wing on economic policy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited May 2021

    ydoethur said:

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
    I'm not sure I've seen anyone "who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive". The other way round seems common enough though.
    Yep. Plenty of people who were willing to look the other way when Cummings was their boy who are now happy to highlight his failings now he has revealed just how chaotic and dysfunctional the Government really is.
    In fairness to you - and we’re unlikely ever to agree on him or on many other things - you have been exactly the other way around. You said he should have resigned over Barnard Castle but unashamedly support him now as you’ve supported him over practically everything else. Admirably principled even if I personally think your loyalty is misplaced.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,404

    TOPPING said:

    ping said:

    @TOPPING

    On tinnitus - IANAE but I know from personal experience that hearing aids help. Very little else provides any proven benefit. There’s clearly a psychosomatic aspect to it - ENT docs prescribe CBT for the worst cases, which is indicative.

    I think it tends to be harder for people who start experiencing tinnitus in later life. I’ve lived with mine all my life and it doesn’t really bother me. If I let it drive me mad, it would. So I don’t dwell on it.

    I’m sure others on this board have experience, too.

    Sometimes tinnitus has a specific cause and is clearly not psychosomatic. Mine was caused directly by a course of chemotherapy four years ago - a known side effect, leading the consultant to cut the chemo a bit short. It's still there, but like you I've learnt to live with it - when I think about it, it's irritating, but most of the time when busy I just forget it.
    Interesting. Have you been jabbed and were there any changes?

    Edit: please don't tell me if you'd rather not. Trying to conduct a fag packet analysis here and hence probably not worth the effort.
    Yes, twice, and no - tinnitus exactly the same.
    I also have tinnitus and have not noticed any difference since my first AZ jab.

    I developed it when I had an ear infection around 12 years ago and I have had it ever since.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    ydoethur said:

    A question for PB Brains Trust please.

    Someone I know has come to me for advice following getting a letter inviting them in for a for a sickness/absence meeting. New manager who has just has sent one to pretty much everyone in the company it seems, for absences under the old manager before they were even hired. This is done on a "Bradford Factor" threshold.

    The letter includes an absence record for the past 12 months including: an isolation for Covid symptoms pending a negative test, an authorised absence for a death in the family, an authorised absence for a funeral following that death, and a 7 work day absence following a Covid positive test result. These details, including that its authorised absence for a funeral, are included in the absence record accompanying the letter. Had the Covid absences not been included, or the death and funeral absence, then there are next-to-no absences and the Bradford Factor score would be nowhere close to the threshold. By my maths they've counted the death and authorised absence for a funeral as two separate instances of absence too.

    I doubt the manager has even looked at their specific record and its just been computer automated, which is not good management in my eyes - but is it legal to discipline people for being off following a Covid positive test? Or an authorised absence for a funeral? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

    Get a union rep in. If not in union then get in touch with an employment lawyer. Typical gobshite new manager straight from training. When I worked for a certain telecom company and we got a new management shithouse in throwing their weight around in their new shitty suit I would respond to every management meeting request with “I will see when I can get a rep in”. Given I was the only member on site the rep would have to come from elsewhere. They would try and wheedle me in to the office but I would refuse and tell them they were trying to bully me.
    They, without exception, gave up and picked on someone else instead.
    Never, ever, be outnumbered in your bosses office.
    Some schools have been trying to include periods of isolation as sick leave. I know this because I have been bombarded with warnings about it from my union. (My school didn’t, by the way.)

    It’s a pretty outrageous thing to do, however you look at it, but I think the key thing it shows is our laws on sickness and particularly pay and discipline are totally unfit for purpose.
    Disgraceful.
    Not just schools. There have been lots of companies doing similar. I can see a lot of tribunals coming up once the dust has settled a bit.

    One very large food manufacturer in Newark told all its workers that once the crisis was over there would probably have to be redundancies and that anyone who had self isolated during lockdown would be at the top of the list. They also brought in workers from Leicester when that city was in local lockdown to fill spaces in their Newark factory. And subsequently had a big outbreak.
    Is “scum” too harsh? I don’t think it is.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,458

    ydoethur said:

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
    I'm not sure I've seen anyone "who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive". The other way round seems common enough though.
    The other way around is more reasonable. Respect is hard won but easily lost.

    As it happens I agree with probably about 90% of what he said, but think he exaggerated some points because he's bitter.
    Not just bitter, he is naturally hyperbolic and thinks he has to have an opinion on everything so exaggerates. Most of what he said was sensible but the stuff that made the paper headlines was largely opinion, often personal and sometimes incorrect.

    The key point for me is that a country ending up with a choice between Johnson and Corbyn is a country that won't get good governance. And essentially that comes down to party members deciding party leaders rather than those who work with them and know them better. It will be very hard to go back to that, but it is strongly in the national interest.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you for this article, Cyclefree, interesting as always. But there is a logical leap which should not be overlooked.

    Having pointed out that there are good reasons for impugning the credibility of this witness, Cyclefree immediately goes off on a frolic of presumption about everyone else in government lying all the time and its consequences.

    Steady on. Government is hard. Facts are complex. Ministers are human. Completeness of truth belongs to divinities alone. Allegations that ministers are lying all the time need detailed accounts, not generalisations.

    To attack a government in a general way based on a witness you have decided to discredit won't quite do. The subject of lying is about the hard remorseless detail.

    Hang on. You have misunderstood. I have no idea whether Hancock has lied. If anything I tend to the @RichardNabavi view that in a fast-moving situation he gave incomplete answers or the best answers he could. That is not the same as calculated lies.

    But Boris has lied, Priti Patel was sacked for lying as was Williamson. By those standards why should Hancock's lies - if he said them - be deemed so much worse, assuming one even believes Cummings.

    My point is that to make good his criticisms Cummings needed integrity to be one of the characteristics by which politicians are judged. Alas for him he has been one of those who has helped make this unnecessary. So when he needed it, it was not there. Karma's a right old bitch, really.
    Thanks. And thanks for your article. I think we are pretty close to agreeing really. Apologies for misunderstanding.

  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    I felt Batley was 50/50 but with Galloway standing I’m leaning towards the Tories. This isn’t the post Iraq landscape but with a sizeable Muslim vote I can still see him taking a couple of thousand off the Labour total and that alone might be enough for the Blues to take the seat.

    It’s an absolute headache and could be the end of Starmer, though I’ve no doubt Gorgeous George will be acutely aware he’s doing a massive favour to his mates on the right like Andrew Neil.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Roger said:

    OT. Interesting documentary on the Soho bomber on Netflix. It's called 'Nail Bomber' If Richard Tyndall is here he'll be interested. There's plenty of John Tyndall in it who I remember you saying is a relative. Interesting how things have changed in the last 20 years. The Admiral Duncan was 54 Old Compton St my flat was 55 though I was on the other side of the road.

    Yep. I perversely have a great deal to be grateful to John Tyndall for. As he was a family member - I think a first cousin of my father - he was always held up by my parents of an example of how dangerous an articulate psychopath could be. They taught me early on to look at what was being said not how it was said.

    I am sure I was a disappointment to him - if he ever really knew much of me - given I was inspired by him to join the ANL just before it was wound up in 1981.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    IanB2 said:

    A question for PB Brains Trust please.

    Someone I know has come to me for advice following getting a letter inviting them in for a for a sickness/absence meeting. New manager who has just has sent one to pretty much everyone in the company it seems, for absences under the old manager before they were even hired. This is done on a "Bradford Factor" threshold.

    The letter includes an absence record for the past 12 months including: an isolation for Covid symptoms pending a negative test, an authorised absence for a death in the family, an authorised absence for a funeral following that death, and a 7 work day absence following a Covid positive test result. These details, including that its authorised absence for a funeral, are included in the absence record accompanying the letter. Had the Covid absences not been included, or the death and funeral absence, then there are next-to-no absences and the Bradford Factor score would be nowhere close to the threshold. By my maths they've counted the death and authorised absence for a funeral as two separate instances of absence too.

    I doubt the manager has even looked at their specific record and its just been computer automated, which is not good management in my eyes - but is it legal to discipline people for being off following a Covid positive test? Or an authorised absence for a funeral? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

    You probably don’t need to offer much more than reassurance. No employer is going to get that far trying to use Covid-specific absences against their employees.

    Worst case, the employer needs to downsize and will end up reducing its workforce through redundancy. Trying to lever people out for cheaper reasons in advance is unlikely to wash.
    That's what I thought.

    Disciplining people for Covid-specific absences kind of sends a message out to everyone that even if you're symptomatic simply do not get tested and just come to work. Not exactly smart. Let alone disciplining people for authorised funeral absences. 😕
    It's ridiculous. But the advice to be calm is good. Calling in a union rep is an excellent idea if union membership is significant in that office (as in schools), but otherwise politely enquiring what the basis for this is and what will be done with the information, and making a careful note of everything the manager says should have the right effect. If asked why they're writing it down, say that it's in case of legal queries at some point. Send the manager a copy of your notes afterwards and ask him to advise if anything is incorrect, then download and keep a copy.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    My response to the SNP on the Australia Trade Deal today.

    No mention from them of better whisky or financial services access for Scottish exports.

    And the SNP hasn’t supported any trade deal ever.

    They are trade isolationists.

    And let Scotland down.


    https://twitter.com/greghands/status/1397923518642155524?s=21
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    ydoethur said:

    A question for PB Brains Trust please.

    Someone I know has come to me for advice following getting a letter inviting them in for a for a sickness/absence meeting. New manager who has just has sent one to pretty much everyone in the company it seems, for absences under the old manager before they were even hired. This is done on a "Bradford Factor" threshold.

    The letter includes an absence record for the past 12 months including: an isolation for Covid symptoms pending a negative test, an authorised absence for a death in the family, an authorised absence for a funeral following that death, and a 7 work day absence following a Covid positive test result. These details, including that its authorised absence for a funeral, are included in the absence record accompanying the letter. Had the Covid absences not been included, or the death and funeral absence, then there are next-to-no absences and the Bradford Factor score would be nowhere close to the threshold. By my maths they've counted the death and authorised absence for a funeral as two separate instances of absence too.

    I doubt the manager has even looked at their specific record and its just been computer automated, which is not good management in my eyes - but is it legal to discipline people for being off following a Covid positive test? Or an authorised absence for a funeral? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me.

    Get a union rep in. If not in union then get in touch with an employment lawyer. Typical gobshite new manager straight from training. When I worked for a certain telecom company and we got a new management shithouse in throwing their weight around in their new shitty suit I would respond to every management meeting request with “I will see when I can get a rep in”. Given I was the only member on site the rep would have to come from elsewhere. They would try and wheedle me in to the office but I would refuse and tell them they were trying to bully me.
    They, without exception, gave up and picked on someone else instead.
    Never, ever, be outnumbered in your bosses office.
    Some schools have been trying to include periods of isolation as sick leave. I know this because I have been bombarded with warnings about it from my union. (My school didn’t, by the way.)

    It’s a pretty outrageous thing to do, however you look at it, but I think the key thing it shows is our laws on sickness and particularly pay and discipline are totally unfit for purpose.
    Disgraceful.
    Not just schools. There have been lots of companies doing similar. I can see a lot of tribunals coming up once the dust has settled a bit.

    One very large food manufacturer in Newark told all its workers that once the crisis was over there would probably have to be redundancies and that anyone who had self isolated during lockdown would be at the top of the list. They also brought in workers from Leicester when that city was in local lockdown to fill spaces in their Newark factory. And subsequently had a big outbreak.
    Is “scum” too harsh? I don’t think it is.
    I think it’s pretty harsh on scum.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047

    Starmer:

    We have the worst death toll in Europe and tens of thousands of people have died unnecessarily.

    Families who have lost loved ones need answers.

    We need the public inquiry into how the Government handled Covid to start this summer.


    Michael Crick:

    Is that death toll per head?

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1397993216083959819?s=20

    This lazy line needs to be called out more often.

    The one lesson I've learnt from the Pandemic is how poor our educational system is at teaching Maths and Statistics.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Brom said:

    I felt Batley was 50/50 but with Galloway standing I’m leaning towards the Tories. This isn’t the post Iraq landscape but with a sizeable Muslim vote I can still see him taking a couple of thousand off the Labour total and that alone might be enough for the Blues to take the seat.

    It’s an absolute headache and could be the end of Starmer, though I’ve no doubt Gorgeous George will be acutely aware he’s doing a massive favour to his mates on the right like Andrew Neil.

    What's any of that got to do with Andrew Neil?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
    Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
    That's not true
    Heroin is still dispensed to this day. A relative of mine gets it. He was an addict back in the 1960s, so presumably it was decided he was too far gone when the methadone thing came along. In a town of over 100,000 people he's the only person who is.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Colin Angus
    @VictimOfMaths
    New COVID cases in Bolton, Blackburn and (perhaps) Glasgow are showing signs of slowing down, but rising fast in Bedford, Clackmannanshire and Rossendale and there are quite a few bubbles threatening to break out of that main pack.

    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1397999057390481409
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
    I'm not sure I've seen anyone "who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive". The other way round seems common enough though.
    Yep. Plenty of people who were willing to look the other way when Cummings was their boy who are now happy to highlight his failings now he has revealed just how chaotic and dysfunctional the Government really is.
    In fairness to you - and we’re unlikely ever to agree on him or on many other things - you have been exactly the other way around. You said he should have resigned over Barnard Castle but unashamedly support him now as you’ve supported him over practically everything else. Admirably principled even if I personally think your loyalty is misplaced.
    I don't in any way unashamedly support him. I just believe him. It is a very different thing. I would not like to see him back anywhere near power and hope he spends his time writing and trying to persuade others of the fundamental failings of our system. But I personally believe that just about every single thing he said in the Select Committee yesterday was accurate.

    I get into arguments with people like TSE because he uses smear and innuendo in place of proper argument. I argue with you because you have a blind spot when it comes to Cummings that means you miss the fact he might, on occasion, be right.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Brom said:

    I felt Batley was 50/50 but with Galloway standing I’m leaning towards the Tories. This isn’t the post Iraq landscape but with a sizeable Muslim vote I can still see him taking a couple of thousand off the Labour total and that alone might be enough for the Blues to take the seat.

    It’s an absolute headache and could be the end of Starmer, though I’ve no doubt Gorgeous George will be acutely aware he’s doing a massive favour to his mates on the right like Andrew Neil.

    Gorgeous George wants to keep up his record of winning more by-elections than Starmer.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited May 2021

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
    I'm not sure I've seen anyone "who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive". The other way round seems common enough though.
    Yep. Plenty of people who were willing to look the other way when Cummings was their boy who are now happy to highlight his failings now he has revealed just how chaotic and dysfunctional the Government really is.
    In fairness to you - and we’re unlikely ever to agree on him or on many other things - you have been exactly the other way around. You said he should have resigned over Barnard Castle but unashamedly support him now as you’ve supported him over practically everything else. Admirably principled even if I personally think your loyalty is misplaced.
    I don't in any way unashamedly support him. I just believe him. It is a very different thing. I would not like to see him back anywhere near power and hope he spends his time writing and trying to persuade others of the fundamental failings of our system. But I personally believe that just about every single thing he said in the Select Committee yesterday was accurate.

    I get into arguments with people like TSE because he uses smear and innuendo in place of proper argument. I argue with you because you have a blind spot when it comes to Cummings that means you miss the fact he might, on occasion, be right.
    On the contrary. I find much of his testimony plausible. How many times have I said similar things about Johnson?

    The issue is that large chunks of it are at variance with his own previous statements on his own position and influence.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588
    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    NEW: George Galloway confirms he's standing in the Batley and Spen by-election with the explicit purpose of ousting Keir Starmer: "If for whatever reason you think that the current leader of the Labour party needs to be replaced, I'm your man."

    Potentially problematic for Labour

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1397979113802153989

    Bad news for the Tories surely. If you want rid of Starmer then vote Tory.
    Not many Tories will vote Galloway. More likely to supported by Labour voters.
    Tories don't just need Tory votes to win though. They need to win eg ex-UKIP/BXP/Heavy Woolen votes too.

    Galloway could be a receptacle for the Heavy Woolen style votes.
    I think that a fair point.

    However, Galloway has stated he is standing to elect a Conservative MP in order to have Starmer replaced by someone as equally mindless as he (Galloway) is. (My precis).
    Even remembering that Burgon is still in it, there is nobody so mindless as George Galloway in the current PLP.
    There are still an awful lot of Galloways remaining in the PLP. I detest them almost as much as I do Bridgen, Francois, Davies and Chope.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Following yesterday's fascinating seven hour full on attack on Boris, Hancock and others by Cummings I would make the following observations

    While it is amusing to see all those who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive of him

    With respect, Big G - not *all* of us.
    I'm not sure I've seen anyone "who condemned Cummings last year now fully supportive". The other way round seems common enough though.
    Yep. Plenty of people who were willing to look the other way when Cummings was their boy who are now happy to highlight his failings now he has revealed just how chaotic and dysfunctional the Government really is.
    In fairness to you - and we’re unlikely ever to agree on him or on many other things - you have been exactly the other way around. You said he should have resigned over Barnard Castle but unashamedly support him now as you’ve supported him over practically everything else. Admirably principled even if I personally think your loyalty is misplaced.
    I don't in any way unashamedly support him. I just believe him. It is a very different thing. I would not like to see him back anywhere near power and hope he spends his time writing and trying to persuade others of the fundamental failings of our system. But I personally believe that just about every single thing he said in the Select Committee yesterday was accurate.

    I get into arguments with people like TSE because he uses smear and innuendo in place of proper argument. I argue with you because you have a blind spot when it comes to Cummings that means you miss the fact he might, on occasion, be right.
    I think when he got personal, that's where it seems less believable. Especially piling on Hancock which seemed like a vitriolic hatred where he'd lost all perspective.

    But for the overwhelming majority of what he said, eg about the issues with the Civil Service shipping PPE rather than flying it because "that's what we do", the suggestion of having a "panic mode" to switch away from normal operations etc, etc, etc there were some very good ideas there.

    Which is kind of him in a nutshell. He has a lot of good ideas, but is not a people person and that's where he has issues.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.

    Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.

    She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.

    A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.

    So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.

    Was that on the tin?

    I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.

    But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.

    Fancy.

    IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
    I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.

    I think they or some of them are scared.
    People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.

    All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.

    Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!

    Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.

    Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.


    Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
    A case in point

    Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.

    IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.

    As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
    Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.

    Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
    But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.

    Why now are you rowing in behind him?

    Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?

    The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
    I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.

    Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.

    The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
    We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.

    Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.

    The horse has bolted. To much applause.
    Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
    No.
    Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
    Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
    That's not true
    Heroin is still dispensed to this day. A relative of mine gets it. He was an addict back in the 1960s, so presumably it was decided he was too far gone when the methadone thing came along. In a town of over 100,000 people he's the only person who is.
    If you want to learn the truth about heroin in this country, I'd recommend this book by Theodore Dalrymple.

    "Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy"

    https://www.waterstones.com/book/romancing-opiates/theodore-dalrymple/9781594030871
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047

    Colin Angus
    @VictimOfMaths
    New COVID cases in Bolton, Blackburn and (perhaps) Glasgow are showing signs of slowing down, but rising fast in Bedford, Clackmannanshire and Rossendale and there are quite a few bubbles threatening to break out of that main pack.

    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1397999057390481409

    It's incredible how dramatic the differences can be. I live in Huntingdonshire which currently runs at 3 cases per 100,000. Next door Bedford is running at 202.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2021
    Fenman said:

    Colin Angus
    @VictimOfMaths
    New COVID cases in Bolton, Blackburn and (perhaps) Glasgow are showing signs of slowing down, but rising fast in Bedford, Clackmannanshire and Rossendale and there are quite a few bubbles threatening to break out of that main pack.

    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1397999057390481409

    It's incredible how dramatic the differences can be. I live in Huntingdonshire which currently runs at 3 cases per 100,000. Next door Bedford is running at 202.
    From my neck of the woods.

    Clear upward trend in cases now, with the daily total hitting the highest since April 12 (for the second day running).

    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
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Brom said:

    I felt Batley was 50/50 but with Galloway standing I’m leaning towards the Tories. This isn’t the post Iraq landscape but with a sizeable Muslim vote I can still see him taking a couple of thousand off the Labour total and that alone might be enough for the Blues to take the seat.

    It’s an absolute headache and could be the end of Starmer, though I’ve no doubt Gorgeous George will be acutely aware he’s doing a massive favour to his mates on the right like Andrew Neil.

    What's any of that got to do with Andrew Neil?
    They’re good mates, Galloway will of course stand on a left wing platform but in reality he’s an old school Eurosceptic non woke traditionalist who probably has more in common with the modern Tory voter than Starmer’s core base.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,404
    Brom said:

    I felt Batley was 50/50 but with Galloway standing I’m leaning towards the Tories. This isn’t the post Iraq landscape but with a sizeable Muslim vote I can still see him taking a couple of thousand off the Labour total and that alone might be enough for the Blues to take the seat.

    It’s an absolute headache and could be the end of Starmer, though I’ve no doubt Gorgeous George will be acutely aware he’s doing a massive favour to his mates on the right like Andrew Neil.

    Presumably all the Batley Momentum loons will be voting Tory in order to get rid of Starmer.

    Then they'll boast about it on Twatter and wonder why they've been expelled from the Labour Party.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Colin Angus
    @VictimOfMaths
    New COVID cases in Bolton, Blackburn and (perhaps) Glasgow are showing signs of slowing down, but rising fast in Bedford, Clackmannanshire and Rossendale and there are quite a few bubbles threatening to break out of that main pack.

    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1397999057390481409

    And we know that the case spike in Bolton has resulted in a manageable number of hospitalisations, the bulk of which are amongst the anti-vaxxers who made their intensive care beds and can lie in them. No reason to suppose either that the Indian Plague won't follow the same pattern elsewhere when it does break out in certain localities, or that it won't barely register as a problem in most of the country.

    Nothing to see here, move on.
This discussion has been closed.