Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
By the time it hits Europe properly though most countries will be as vaccinated, or almost so, as the UK. The USA is the real mystery. Cases are down to virtually zero, yet the country is almost completely open and in many places unvaccinated. And Delta is there, even if not as heavily seeded as here. It surely can't defy the laws of epidemiology forever can it, especially given what's happening in Latin America?
Maybe the key thing is superspreader events. Time and time again we've seen large scale gatherings caused by holidays and festivals (Italian ski trips last year, Holi in India this spring, now a Scottish outbreak apparently caused by Euro 2020 with massive surges in males aged 20-44). Avoid these big events and the little flares of growth seem to meander along without taking off. Some evidence from those indoor Trump rallies last year too. Like when you pitch yeast into a home brew, if you don't put enough in then sometimes it just doesn't take hold. If you chuck a load in it gets going quickly and chugs along.
On topic, thanks for this @Quincel, I would make a few observations. It is not just the percentage of Muslim voters that counts (and worth noting, in 2012, Galloway won Bradford West against a Muslim candidate) but also if he has a cause celebre to stir things. It is worth noting that in the 2017 and 2019 by-elections, it is noticeable that he did badly at a time when Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party. It might be argued that the reason Galloway didn't gain much traction was because Muslims felt they had an ally in the leadership and so there was not a reason to "rebel".
This time round, he does have some boosters to feed his vote - SKS' handling of Corbyn / the anti-Semitic allegations, what looks like dissatisfaction against the candidate at the local party level and how she was appointed plus her personal sexuality, the Batley Grammar issue plus one or two others - which would seem to boost his likely performance.
The one thing against that is the Survation Polling, which got Huddersfield results right. The only question I would have there is what is Survation's track record at polling in seats with a large ethnic minority vote and whose English fluency may be limited in the older segments (I don't know the answer)?
The other thing against it, though, is that experienced canvassers aren't seeing it. It was obvious in Hartlepool that we were losing big time and countless Labour canvassers predicted it. Here, we are only seeing even moderately significant Galloway support in the two Muslim wards, and even there it's not a majority. I think you're right for the single segment of young Muslims, who do (probably correctly) think that Starmer isn't especially interested in Palestine, but that's perhaps 5% of the electorate.
Personally I think the Labour-Galloway gap (which is what the Ladbrokes bet is about) will be over 20 percentage points. i think it's free money, but of course DYOR.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
I have heard numbers in the range of 5-6 for Delta's natural R.
Which means that we (as in the heavily vaccinated countries) were very very lucky with the vaccines. Otherwise we would be looking at Italy the first time round. Everywhere.
What will happen in the less vaccinated countries when Delta does it's thing.... ugh.
Especially as it becomes increasingly difficult to reimpose restrictions.
I do think that Delta has encourage further vaccine take-up among the young here (which would be more undeserved luck for Boris).
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
Well, I hope you're wrong - if only because I don't want anyone to get this blooming pox (BTW, I'm not saying you do, either).
I've been reading PB without commenting during this crisis. One thing that's amused and saddened me is seeing people declaring 'victory' for one country and 'failure' for another, based purely on political biases - and before the events have fully played out, as waves sweep over countries at varying rates.
On the other hand, there have been some excellent posters wrt Covid. Amongst others, Malmesbury has done a superb job on the stats, and so has NigelB on technical details, to name just two. Thanks to all of them.
"This fake fabricated photograph of me constitutes a criminal offence. Anyone retweeting it is committing a criminal offence. It has been reported to the police, to the @ElectoralCommUK and my solicitor will take legal action against its authors."
The photograph purports to show him brandishing a handgun.
"I’ve heard from friends campaigning in Batley that Labour activists are being actively intimidated and have even had eggs thrown at them."
It's somewhat of a double-take that Labour activists, rather than Tories, are being intimidated and abused.
Either way, it is of course unacceptable.
The irony is it is most likely intimidation from more extreme left wing brethren.
Are there any tory activists to even intimidate?
Don't be silly, but my point demonstrates, as I have said for many years, that the enemy as far as Momentum types are concerned are mainstream Labour supporters and not the Conservatives.
After all their efforts keep returning Conservative Governments.
Yes and I think there's an interesting point there. Splits in parties between purists and pragmatists tend to be more bitter than those between parties because they are like civil wars, with each accusing the other of being traitors. While arguments between parties tend to be more like international wars, with ritualised agreements on more gentlemanly rules.
But Momentum types don't recognise the rules in the latter types of conflicts.
Nah. I'm a member of Momentum and know lots of others. I don't know anyone who thinks the enemy is mainstream Labour supporters - it's a caricature, and personally I don't see anyone in Britain as an enemy, not even Farage. Of course there are a few nutters in every group but mostly it's the usual argument about perceived electability vs perceived progressive policies, and conducted on generally civilised terms.
Batley and Spen is a good example, actually. The group that's stirring things up is travelling all the way from Birmingham for the purpose. When I talked to voters across the spectrum yesterday (from former BNP to socialist Labour), nobody had a good word to say for them. People generalise fringe actors by characterising groups that they dislike - it's like saying that because there are some racists out there, all Tories are are racists. I've been doing this stuff for many decades, and really the number of people who are beyond reason is very, very small - on the right as on the left. As we see here, for that matter.
Always interesting to have the perspective from someone at the coalface, even if it differs from my own experiences.
Same. Momentum Surrey must be a very different beast to Momentum on Teesside. They were (and still are so I hear) the polar opposite of what Nick describes. Finger-jabbing, eye-popping lunatics. I went to one meeting (as a CLP exec member to observe). The (then) local vice chair standing up angrily condemning the (then) local Labour MP was something to behold. "He's a privatiser!" I pointed out that he personally had organised and led a co-operative of GPs to takeover local services that had been awarded without tender to Virgin Healthcare, and she got even more eye-poppy and finger pointy. And then got applauded.
Then you see their activists (when they can be bothered) on the doorstep. Arguing with voters. Calling them names. Absolute mentalists.
"This fake fabricated photograph of me constitutes a criminal offence. Anyone retweeting it is committing a criminal offence. It has been reported to the police, to the @ElectoralCommUK and my solicitor will take legal action against its authors."
The photograph purports to show him brandishing a handgun.
Surely the only acceptable response is to start tweeting the photo of him pretending to be a cat.
@The_IoD@cmi_managers@FT@DanielThomasLDN@BorisJohnson@cmi_ceo I suspect the govt will 'prioritise trade flows' but we're already seeing with UK businesses that a lot are setting up in EU, splitting supply chains so they don't hub/distro out of UK into Europe - like JD Sports has./8
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
Well, I hope you're wrong - if only because I don't want anyone to get this blooming pox (BTW, I'm not saying you do, either).
I've been reading PB without commenting during this crisis. One thing that's amused and saddened me is seeing people declaring 'victory' for one country and 'failure' for another, based purely on political biases - and before the events have fully played out, as waves sweep over countries at varying rates.
On the other hand, there have been some excellent posters wrt Covid. Amongst others, Malmesbury has done a superb job on the stats, and so has NigelB on technical details, to name just two. Thanks to all of them.
PB has, as so often, been a better source of information than available elsewhere.
As to public perceptions they're inevitable and they have a consequent feedthrough into political effects.
On topic, thanks for this @Quincel, I would make a few observations. It is not just the percentage of Muslim voters that counts (and worth noting, in 2012, Galloway won Bradford West against a Muslim candidate) but also if he has a cause celebre to stir things. It is worth noting that in the 2017 and 2019 by-elections, it is noticeable that he did badly at a time when Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party. It might be argued that the reason Galloway didn't gain much traction was because Muslims felt they had an ally in the leadership and so there was not a reason to "rebel".
This time round, he does have some boosters to feed his vote - SKS' handling of Corbyn / the anti-Semitic allegations, what looks like dissatisfaction against the candidate at the local party level and how she was appointed plus her personal sexuality, the Batley Grammar issue plus one or two others - which would seem to boost his likely performance.
The one thing against that is the Survation Polling, which got Huddersfield results right. The only question I would have there is what is Survation's track record at polling in seats with a large ethnic minority vote and whose English fluency may be limited in the older segments (I don't know the answer)?
The other thing against it, though, is that experienced canvassers aren't seeing it. It was obvious in Hartlepool that we were losing big time and countless Labour canvassers predicted it. Here, we are only seeing even moderately significant Galloway support in the two Muslim wards, and even there it's not a majority. I think you're right for the single segment of young Muslims, who do (probably correctly) think that Starmer isn't especially interested in Palestine, but that's perhaps 5% of the electorate.
Personally I think the Labour-Galloway gap (which is what the Ladbrokes bet is about) will be over 20 percentage points. i think it's free money, but of course DYOR.
Let’s hope you’re right Nick, and that Galloway is told firmly by the electorate that his brand of politics is unwelcome.
Captions please (fearties scared of Gorgeous George's lawyers are excused)
“Sometimes you're better off dead There's a gun in your hand and it's pointing at your head You think you're mad, too unstable Kicking in chairs and knocking down tables In a restaurant in a West End town Call the police, there's a mad man around Running down underground to a dive bar In a West End town”
Captions please (fearties scared of Gorgeous George's lawyers are excused)
“Sometimes you're better off dead There's a gun in your hand and it's pointing at your head You think you're mad, too unstable Kicking in chairs and knocking down tables In a restaurant in a West End town Call the police, there's a mad man around Running down underground to a dive bar In a West End town”
"This fake fabricated photograph of me constitutes a criminal offence. Anyone retweeting it is committing a criminal offence. It has been reported to the police, to the @ElectoralCommUK and my solicitor will take legal action against its authors."
The photograph purports to show him brandishing a handgun.
Anderson told Bloomberg that she was impressed by the biocontainment lab at the institute. According to the virologist, researchers had to undergo 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.
“It’s very, very extensive,” Anderson said of the training.
45 hours does not sound extensive to me.
That's assuming it was 45 hours of actual training.
No extraordinary general election in Sweden. Instead PM Stefan Löfven resigns and thereby forces the Opposition to attempt to form a viable government. That seems to be profoundly unlikely, given parliamentary arithmetic.
On topic, thanks for this @Quincel, I would make a few observations. It is not just the percentage of Muslim voters that counts (and worth noting, in 2012, Galloway won Bradford West against a Muslim candidate) but also if he has a cause celebre to stir things. It is worth noting that in the 2017 and 2019 by-elections, it is noticeable that he did badly at a time when Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party. It might be argued that the reason Galloway didn't gain much traction was because Muslims felt they had an ally in the leadership and so there was not a reason to "rebel".
This time round, he does have some boosters to feed his vote - SKS' handling of Corbyn / the anti-Semitic allegations, what looks like dissatisfaction against the candidate at the local party level and how she was appointed plus her personal sexuality, the Batley Grammar issue plus one or two others - which would seem to boost his likely performance.
The one thing against that is the Survation Polling, which got Huddersfield results right. The only question I would have there is what is Survation's track record at polling in seats with a large ethnic minority vote and whose English fluency may be limited in the older segments (I don't know the answer)?
The other thing against it, though, is that experienced canvassers aren't seeing it. It was obvious in Hartlepool that we were losing big time and countless Labour canvassers predicted it. Here, we are only seeing even moderately significant Galloway support in the two Muslim wards, and even there it's not a majority. I think you're right for the single segment of young Muslims, who do (probably correctly) think that Starmer isn't especially interested in Palestine, but that's perhaps 5% of the electorate.
Personally I think the Labour-Galloway gap (which is what the Ladbrokes bet is about) will be over 20 percentage points. i think it's free money, but of course DYOR.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
By the time it hits Europe properly though most countries will be as vaccinated, or almost so, as the UK. The USA is the real mystery. Cases are down to virtually zero, yet the country is almost completely open and in many places unvaccinated. And Delta is there, even if not as heavily seeded as here. It surely can't defy the laws of epidemiology forever can it, especially given what's happening in Latin America?
Maybe the key thing is superspreader events. Time and time again we've seen large scale gatherings caused by holidays and festivals (Italian ski trips last year, Holi in India this spring, now a Scottish outbreak apparently caused by Euro 2020 with massive surges in males aged 20-44). Avoid these big events and the little flares of growth seem to meander along without taking off. Some evidence from those indoor Trump rallies last year too. Like when you pitch yeast into a home brew, if you don't put enough in then sometimes it just doesn't take hold. If you chuck a load in it gets going quickly and chugs along.
By the time it hits Europe properly though most countries will be as vaccinated, or almost so, as the UK.
That remains to be seen.
We know that much of Eastern Europe will be far less vaccinated and possibly France as well.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Presumably 100% open borders and anyone who opposes it is a racist with some shit about Rwanda chucked in for good measure ?
I do have to laugh. I want an effective border and the rule of law to be paramount. You lot crap on the rule of law and don't bother with the border at all. As I said above, you lot are firmly in charge now, the policy agenda is clear yet what have you done in practice? Have you hired border force agents in large enough numbers? No. Have you stepped up enforcement of people exploiting illegal labour? No. Have you invested in staff to process and quickly deport unwanted illegals? No.
The government has no clue about the detail. On any subject. Immigration is no exception.
Mate, you’re off your head.
‘You lot’ indeed, don’t assume because someone calls out your nonsense they are automatically a Tory. I voted labour at every GE since 1987 and am perfectly comfortable with reasonable migration levels and reaching out to asylum seekers.
You lose the good points in a sea of dribbling rancid invective. You’re acting like the momentum activists you were speaking about earlier. It’s like being on Twitter.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
And yet it is the logical consequence of self-id gender ideology.
No it isn't. Because they never have to sleep with anyone they don't want to. For whatever reason.
They don't. But they are being accused of transphobia and attacked. It is one reason why some lesbian groups have set up away from Stonewall and in opposition to it, precisely because they are worried about the consequences of self-id for lesbians.
This is a real issue for lesbians who feel that the demands of men wishing to transition are taking precedence over the rights of women and lesbians in particular.
I suspect we are largely in agreement here.
If a man wants to dress as a woman that is no problem. If a man want to live as a woman that is no problem. If a man wants to take part in women's sporting events that are restricted to women that is a problem. However he/she wishes to self identify, he/she does not qualify. The weight lifting thing in the Olympics is absurd. If a man wants to make use of "safe spaces" for women such as toilets, prisons, changing rooms there is a conflict of rights but in my view that conflict should be resolved in favour of those born with the sex of a women if they are at risk. That is why those spaces exist.
But no one, ever, is obliged to have sex with anyone else. That is all I was saying.
It is not quite that simple though is it. You meet someone in the bar you are attracted, you wine her and dine her over a couple of weeks then you find out she isn't a women/man depending on your gender.
At what point does it become incumbent on someone to mention it before it becomes deception? You whether he or she may be spending money on someone that you wouldn't have done if you had known up front. This sort of thing is going to crop up and I fully expect lawsuits about it.
Isn't the simplest way to simply employ the Croc Dundee greeting whenever you meet someone new?
Also legally is it even deception?
If a transwoman (biological man) identifies as and is legally a woman, even if they have a penis, then why would they need to say that they have a penis or are biologically a man?
Which is kind of messed up, but legally is there any grounds for it to be considered a deception?
That the girl you've picked up has a penis may be a bit more of a shock than that she has a third nipple or false leg, but is there any law that says it needs to be declared?
That was a woman posing as a man. She was acting fraudulently.
A transwoman is a biological man who is legally a woman. So if she calls herself a woman, the law agrees that she is a woman, so no deception has occurred.
If you disagree with that, surely that's an issue in the law, not the individual committing a crime?
No, the law doesn’t agree. Self ID is not the law yet.
The question was if they're legally a woman, not self-identifying as one.
You can in law now be legally a woman with a penis.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
Are you serious? This is stupid shit politics doing dog whistle for racists. Of course it is relevant that the Home Secretary doing it is a 1st generation migrant.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
I agree that given the narrowness of the Channel (vs the 1000 miles for Australia) this is headline stuff rather than practical
But why is the Home Secretary’s background relevant?
Again, are you serious? She of all people should know how critical a fair and just migration policy is. She is Home Secretary because previous Home Secretaries let her parents migrate here from a country neighbouring the one she now wants to use as exclusion camps.
So she says that its ok for her parents to come here, but not the parents of the potential 2075 Home Secretary who she'd inter next door in Rwanda. Why? Because she has zero moral fibre and is happy to dog whistle for the racist wazzocks who sadly infest my former country who want to send anyone who isn't pure bred anglo-saxon like them "back home".
No, @Rochdale - are you serious? As a false equivalence that quite takes the biscuit.
You may have a point wrt to the Govt's policy, but to compare that to economic migration is strange.
A better analogy for Uganda would perhaps be the policy wrt UK passport holders from Hong Kong. Links already exist, and it is driven by government persecution.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
By the time it hits Europe properly though most countries will be as vaccinated, or almost so, as the UK. The USA is the real mystery. Cases are down to virtually zero, yet the country is almost completely open and in many places unvaccinated. And Delta is there, even if not as heavily seeded as here. It surely can't defy the laws of epidemiology forever can it, especially given what's happening in Latin America?
Maybe the key thing is superspreader events. Time and time again we've seen large scale gatherings caused by holidays and festivals (Italian ski trips last year, Holi in India this spring, now a Scottish outbreak apparently caused by Euro 2020 with massive surges in males aged 20-44). Avoid these big events and the little flares of growth seem to meander along without taking off. Some evidence from those indoor Trump rallies last year too. Like when you pitch yeast into a home brew, if you don't put enough in then sometimes it just doesn't take hold. If you chuck a load in it gets going quickly and chugs along.
In the US, you have the issue of health care being paid for and expensive. And the labour laws... All of which makes not knowing that you have COVID and surfing at home in silence a personal choice that many will take.
As opposed to countries where you are being given stacks of free tests to do at home.
Anderson told Bloomberg that she was impressed by the biocontainment lab at the institute. According to the virologist, researchers had to undergo 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.
“It’s very, very extensive,” Anderson said of the training.
45 hours does not sound extensive to me.
That's assuming it was 45 hours of actual training.
It's a fair bit, no? More than a normal (notional, at least) working week. And this will be lab-specific training on the bicontainment measures, these will already be experienced scientists, I'd have thought.
Some comparisons, from my experience: - ONS approved researcher training (enables accessing various secure data stores with sensitive data): 1 day (probably about 5-6 hours) - Radiation protection training (I forget the name, but legal requirement for handling isotopes unsupervised when I did some wet chemistry dating work): 2 days (10-12 hours?) - Learning to drive: 12 hours of lessons, as I recall So, the lab training should be more. Failing to train driving properly, I may kill a few people. Failing to train radiation protection properly I may kill myself, maybe a handful of others. Could cause health problems through contamination for scores more. Data security unlikely to kill, but could compromise data for millions.
One is that there's a lot of Covid in other countries that they're simply not picking up.
The other is that the UK genuinely has more cases, and is also doing enormous numbers of tests to confirm that people who almost certainly don't have Covid definitely don't have Covid.
Yes - without knowing more about other countries testing regimes its not clear at all. I think we are finding a lot of people (ages 11-25) who are not showing symptoms, and perhaps wouldn't be identified in other places. However it also seems likely that delta is on the rampage in places in the UK too, more so than in Europe thanks to our multiple seeding (another great legacy of Empire!)
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Voters in Switzerland and Norway haven't been groomed to think that spending any money on anything that doesn't directly benefit them is wrong.
It is interesting though. The Blue Labour Cult claim to be pro-Britain having taken back control of our border and migration policy. Have they properly funded Border Force? No. Recruited customs agents and officers? No. Passed laws to go after the companies who exploit illegal labour? No.
Seemingly the only thing they have done is send her out in a branded jacket to smirk whilst a single illegal is rounded up for the camera whilst thinking what other headline generating stunts she can do next.
Like so many other areas they have no real interest in policy or actually governing. No grasp of the issue, never mind what to do about it. Just headlines so that the ill-informed think they are doing what they want.
They were actually people smugglers, or alleged ones, who were arrested. They hysterical online mob assumed they were illegal migrants and it now seems to be the case people believe it.
What were you saying about The headlines and the ill informed ?
Great! And they're doing a lot of that are they? As the government know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, we don't have the staff and resources to enforce the existing laws.
A one-off "look! we're arresting someone!" means nothing in the scheme of things. Farage may be the rabble-rouser in chief but he does keep pointing out that the authorities have no clue how many people are coming in.
If the government actually had any interest in trying to arrest people smugglers or illegals or even having border officials available at ports of entry they would do so. They don't so its all just about headlines.
Mate, my point was that you were ranting about people being ill informed By the media and making erroneous conclusions based on it yet you did exactly that yourself.
Anderson told Bloomberg that she was impressed by the biocontainment lab at the institute. According to the virologist, researchers had to undergo 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.
“It’s very, very extensive,” Anderson said of the training.
45 hours does not sound extensive to me.
That's assuming it was 45 hours of actual training.
I’m doing a temp holiday cover job for the next month.
I did more than 45 hours’ training for it, over the past two weeks.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
And yet it is the logical consequence of self-id gender ideology.
No it isn't. Because they never have to sleep with anyone they don't want to. For whatever reason.
They don't. But they are being accused of transphobia and attacked. It is one reason why some lesbian groups have set up away from Stonewall and in opposition to it, precisely because they are worried about the consequences of self-id for lesbians.
This is a real issue for lesbians who feel that the demands of men wishing to transition are taking precedence over the rights of women and lesbians in particular.
I suspect we are largely in agreement here.
If a man wants to dress as a woman that is no problem. If a man want to live as a woman that is no problem. If a man wants to take part in women's sporting events that are restricted to women that is a problem. However he/she wishes to self identify, he/she does not qualify. The weight lifting thing in the Olympics is absurd. If a man wants to make use of "safe spaces" for women such as toilets, prisons, changing rooms there is a conflict of rights but in my view that conflict should be resolved in favour of those born with the sex of a women if they are at risk. That is why those spaces exist.
But no one, ever, is obliged to have sex with anyone else. That is all I was saying.
It is not quite that simple though is it. You meet someone in the bar you are attracted, you wine her and dine her over a couple of weeks then you find out she isn't a women/man depending on your gender.
At what point does it become incumbent on someone to mention it before it becomes deception? You whether he or she may be spending money on someone that you wouldn't have done if you had known up front. This sort of thing is going to crop up and I fully expect lawsuits about it.
Isn't the simplest way to simply employ the Croc Dundee greeting whenever you meet someone new?
Also legally is it even deception?
If a transwoman (biological man) identifies as and is legally a woman, even if they have a penis, then why would they need to say that they have a penis or are biologically a man?
Which is kind of messed up, but legally is there any grounds for it to be considered a deception?
That the girl you've picked up has a penis may be a bit more of a shock than that she has a third nipple or false leg, but is there any law that says it needs to be declared?
That was a woman posing as a man. She was acting fraudulently.
A transwoman is a biological man who is legally a woman. So if she calls herself a woman, the law agrees that she is a woman, so no deception has occurred.
If you disagree with that, surely that's an issue in the law, not the individual committing a crime?
No, the law doesn’t agree. Self ID is not the law yet.
The question was if they're legally a woman, not self-identifying as one.
You can in law now be legally a woman with a penis.
You can but you don’t know if that is the case here.
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
What does Telegraph mean by support an extension? From 19 July or 5 July?
Not clear. We may know more when he speaks later. The context of the article is more about what happens on 19th. I think most in government have already written off 5th, even if they think that's a mistake. Time has run out.
One is that there's a lot of Covid in other countries that they're simply not picking up.
The other is that the UK genuinely has more cases, and is also doing enormous numbers of tests to confirm that people who almost certainly don't have Covid definitely don't have Covid.
I think it is a mixture of both....
That's interesting. I haven't bothered to trace whether Germany got Delta straight from India or via the UK - which can perhaps be done via one of the sequencing database sites.
It is true that the UK has by far the largest Indian-extract community in Europe (1.4 milllion, I think the next is Italy at 50k), which is relevant.
To my eye the far bigger risks for the EU-27 are enforced opening of internal borders, and vaccine takeup.
Also, I wonder about the difference between our wave now, and a wave later in the year (though it hopefully won't happen).
Anyone know the relative numbers who enter the UK on little boats, as opposed to coming on a plane as a tourist and then just forgetting to leave? Which seems like a much simpler way in.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
An exception is rented housing, where the checks are ferocious. A relative in her 60s who was born in Scotland and has lived all her life in Britain (but who hadn't bothered to renew her passport as she doesn't travel) had to struggle for weeks to get an estate agent to accept that she had a right to live in Britain. The agent was apologetic since he could see and hear that she was Scottish, but said he'd lose his job and his company could lose its licence to operate unless they could show they had required absolute proof.
The leaflet that was circulating yesterday about SKS kneeling and being incredibly woke and proud of it purporting to be from the Labour party remains of interest. Cui bono? Who would be hoping that socially conservative Labour supporters might be annoyed by such positioning and look to undermine the current Labour leader by voting for someone else?
FWIW I think Galloway is a spent force. He had considerable traction in the Muslim community when they were incredibly angry about the Iraq war and the horrific consequences of that invasion. No doubt the smoldering resentment of how many died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria but there is not the current flame and the salutation of Saddam's indefatigability seems a long time ago. I see no signs of any new tunes. I agree with @Quincel
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Presumably 100% open borders and anyone who opposes it is a racist with some shit about Rwanda chucked in for good measure ?
The BBC has a lot to answer for. Its woke agenda deemed illegal immigrants as migrants. They are migrants but illegal.migrants. We should be taking those crossing back to France from whence they came.
What are the legalities around a straight return to France?
I don't mean the politics, or the gumming-up-the-process technique of campaign groups.
Does the right for an immediate return exist? And can it be enforced practically?
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
And yet it is the logical consequence of self-id gender ideology.
No it isn't. Because they never have to sleep with anyone they don't want to. For whatever reason.
They don't. But they are being accused of transphobia and attacked. It is one reason why some lesbian groups have set up away from Stonewall and in opposition to it, precisely because they are worried about the consequences of self-id for lesbians.
This is a real issue for lesbians who feel that the demands of men wishing to transition are taking precedence over the rights of women and lesbians in particular.
I suspect we are largely in agreement here.
If a man wants to dress as a woman that is no problem. If a man want to live as a woman that is no problem. If a man wants to take part in women's sporting events that are restricted to women that is a problem. However he/she wishes to self identify, he/she does not qualify. The weight lifting thing in the Olympics is absurd. If a man wants to make use of "safe spaces" for women such as toilets, prisons, changing rooms there is a conflict of rights but in my view that conflict should be resolved in favour of those born with the sex of a women if they are at risk. That is why those spaces exist.
But no one, ever, is obliged to have sex with anyone else. That is all I was saying.
It is not quite that simple though is it. You meet someone in the bar you are attracted, you wine her and dine her over a couple of weeks then you find out she isn't a women/man depending on your gender.
At what point does it become incumbent on someone to mention it before it becomes deception? You whether he or she may be spending money on someone that you wouldn't have done if you had known up front. This sort of thing is going to crop up and I fully expect lawsuits about it.
Isn't the simplest way to simply employ the Croc Dundee greeting whenever you meet someone new?
Also legally is it even deception?
If a transwoman (biological man) identifies as and is legally a woman, even if they have a penis, then why would they need to say that they have a penis or are biologically a man?
Which is kind of messed up, but legally is there any grounds for it to be considered a deception?
That the girl you've picked up has a penis may be a bit more of a shock than that she has a third nipple or false leg, but is there any law that says it needs to be declared?
That was a woman posing as a man. She was acting fraudulently.
A transwoman is a biological man who is legally a woman. So if she calls herself a woman, the law agrees that she is a woman, so no deception has occurred.
If you disagree with that, surely that's an issue in the law, not the individual committing a crime?
No, the law doesn’t agree. Self ID is not the law yet.
The question was if they're legally a woman, not self-identifying as one.
You can in law now be legally a woman with a penis.
I feel a disturbance in the Force - millions of lawyers start pricing a new Ferrari
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
By the time it hits Europe properly though most countries will be as vaccinated, or almost so, as the UK. The USA is the real mystery. Cases are down to virtually zero, yet the country is almost completely open and in many places unvaccinated. And Delta is there, even if not as heavily seeded as here. It surely can't defy the laws of epidemiology forever can it, especially given what's happening in Latin America?
Maybe the key thing is superspreader events. Time and time again we've seen large scale gatherings caused by holidays and festivals (Italian ski trips last year, Holi in India this spring, now a Scottish outbreak apparently caused by Euro 2020 with massive surges in males aged 20-44). Avoid these big events and the little flares of growth seem to meander along without taking off. Some evidence from those indoor Trump rallies last year too. Like when you pitch yeast into a home brew, if you don't put enough in then sometimes it just doesn't take hold. If you chuck a load in it gets going quickly and chugs along.
By the time it hits Europe properly though most countries will be as vaccinated, or almost so, as the UK.
That remains to be seen.
We know that much of Eastern Europe will be far less vaccinated and possibly France as well.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Presumably 100% open borders and anyone who opposes it is a racist with some shit about Rwanda chucked in for good measure ?
The BBC has a lot to answer for. Its woke agenda deemed illegal immigrants as migrants. They are migrants but illegal.migrants. We should be taking those crossing back to France from whence they came.
What are the legalities around a straight return to France?
I don't mean the politics, or the gumming-up-the-process technique of campaign groups.
Does the right for an immediate return exist? And can it be enforced practically?
Problem is proving they came from France in the first place; could have hopped on a lorry or a boat in Belgium, for instance, no?
Latest results on the behaviour of individuals required to self-isolate after testing positive for #COVID19 in June show 79% adhered to self-isolation requirements.
This is significantly lower than previous results seen in May (86%)
"I’ve been vilified, condemned, had a fake photo circulated of me holding a gun, and even my HAT has been accused of being intimidating! It’s why I know I am on course for victory in next week’s by-election."
On the face of it, he has a point. Events are consistent with his opponents being scared of him and getting desperate.
But they're also consistent with an effort to stir things up that is not limited to the relatively trifling matter of who represents B&S at Westminster or even who leads the Labour Party.
Stir things up? As if!
"I trended for days on social media as hordes of the trendiest liberals were deployed to paint ME as 'far-right.' Me, the boy born in a slum, who grew up in a council house, a former factory-worker, a fellow-traveller with Benn from 1973, a 50-year trades unionist, the leader of the Workers Party of Britain, 'far-right.' Ridiculous tripe."
Yeah, Gorgeous, but what about your actions?
He concludes his article by directing people to an article in the Daily Mail which he feels tells it how it is about the Labour party being "f***ed". A case of "Hurrah for the Workers' Party"?
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Presumably 100% open borders and anyone who opposes it is a racist with some shit about Rwanda chucked in for good measure ?
The BBC has a lot to answer for. Its woke agenda deemed illegal immigrants as migrants. They are migrants but illegal.migrants. We should be taking those crossing back to France from whence they came.
What are the legalities around a straight return to France?
I don't mean the politics, or the gumming-up-the-process technique of campaign groups.
Does the right for an immediate return exist? And can it be enforced practically?
The French have always refused and always will refuse. You'd have an easier time getting them to declare that English was the official language of the EU, or agree to reforming the CAP.......
Of course, you could illegally sneak them ashore using RIBs :-)
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
And yet it is the logical consequence of self-id gender ideology.
No it isn't. Because they never have to sleep with anyone they don't want to. For whatever reason.
They don't. But they are being accused of transphobia and attacked. It is one reason why some lesbian groups have set up away from Stonewall and in opposition to it, precisely because they are worried about the consequences of self-id for lesbians.
This is a real issue for lesbians who feel that the demands of men wishing to transition are taking precedence over the rights of women and lesbians in particular.
I suspect we are largely in agreement here.
If a man wants to dress as a woman that is no problem. If a man want to live as a woman that is no problem. If a man wants to take part in women's sporting events that are restricted to women that is a problem. However he/she wishes to self identify, he/she does not qualify. The weight lifting thing in the Olympics is absurd. If a man wants to make use of "safe spaces" for women such as toilets, prisons, changing rooms there is a conflict of rights but in my view that conflict should be resolved in favour of those born with the sex of a women if they are at risk. That is why those spaces exist.
But no one, ever, is obliged to have sex with anyone else. That is all I was saying.
It is not quite that simple though is it. You meet someone in the bar you are attracted, you wine her and dine her over a couple of weeks then you find out she isn't a women/man depending on your gender.
At what point does it become incumbent on someone to mention it before it becomes deception? You whether he or she may be spending money on someone that you wouldn't have done if you had known up front. This sort of thing is going to crop up and I fully expect lawsuits about it.
Isn't the simplest way to simply employ the Croc Dundee greeting whenever you meet someone new?
Also legally is it even deception?
If a transwoman (biological man) identifies as and is legally a woman, even if they have a penis, then why would they need to say that they have a penis or are biologically a man?
Which is kind of messed up, but legally is there any grounds for it to be considered a deception?
That the girl you've picked up has a penis may be a bit more of a shock than that she has a third nipple or false leg, but is there any law that says it needs to be declared?
That was a woman posing as a man. She was acting fraudulently.
A transwoman is a biological man who is legally a woman. So if she calls herself a woman, the law agrees that she is a woman, so no deception has occurred.
If you disagree with that, surely that's an issue in the law, not the individual committing a crime?
No, the law doesn’t agree. Self ID is not the law yet.
The question was if they're legally a woman, not self-identifying as one.
You can in law now be legally a woman with a penis.
You can but you don’t know if that is the case here.
Indeed.
But the point is that people were assuming that the victim of the assault had committed a crime of deception - without considering the fact its entirely possible that she is legally a woman. And if she is legally a woman, then how would a crime of deception have occurred?
The leaflet that was circulating yesterday about SKS kneeling and being incredibly woke and proud of it purporting to be from the Labour party remains of interest. Cui bono? Who would be hoping that socially conservative Labour supporters might be annoyed by such positioning and look to undermine the current Labour leader by voting for someone else?
FWIW I think Galloway is a spent force. He had considerable traction in the Muslim community when they were incredibly angry about the Iraq war and the horrific consequences of that invasion. No doubt the smoldering resentment of how many died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria but there is not the current flame and the salutation of Saddam's indefatigability seems a long time ago. I see no signs of any new tunes. I agree with @Quincel
The trouble is that even spent forces can cause a lot of damage, especially if their aim is just to cause trouble. Consider the effect Dom is having on the Conservative Party. Or that Russia is having on world affairs.
The leaflet that was circulating yesterday about SKS kneeling and being incredibly woke and proud of it purporting to be from the Labour party remains of interest. Cui bono? Who would be hoping that socially conservative Labour supporters might be annoyed by such positioning and look to undermine the current Labour leader by voting for someone else?
FWIW I think Galloway is a spent force. He had considerable traction in the Muslim community when they were incredibly angry about the Iraq war and the horrific consequences of that invasion. No doubt the smoldering resentment of how many died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria but there is not the current flame and the salutation of Saddam's indefatigability seems a long time ago. I see no signs of any new tunes. I agree with @Quincel
The trouble is that even spent forces can cause a lot of damage, especially if their aim is just to cause trouble. Consider the effect Dom is having on the Conservative Party. Or that Russia is having on world affairs.
Oh sure, I think that he can split the Labour vote and make a Labour hold less likely. But I agree with @NickPalmer and others that his vote will ultimately be derisory and that betting on Labour beating him is free money. Will this be enough to give the Tories the seat? Maybe, but I think that the markets are overrating their chances, especially post Hancock.
OT but thouroughly enjoying Mick Herron's Slough House series about a bunch of MI5 rejects consigned to dead end jobs in a dingy office so they quit rather than go through the faff of firing them. Some wickedly drawn pen portraits of a female PM "who is the only person in the country who doesn't know she's temporary" and an ambitious politician who has the most tenuous of relationships with either the truth or fidelity. The operation is led by a corpulent, flatulent, alcoholic (to be played by Gary Oldman in the Apple TV series) who has the most glorious line in un-PC offensiveness....
Anderson told Bloomberg that she was impressed by the biocontainment lab at the institute. According to the virologist, researchers had to undergo 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.
“It’s very, very extensive,” Anderson said of the training.
45 hours does not sound extensive to me.
That's assuming it was 45 hours of actual training.
It's a fair bit, no? More than a normal (notional, at least) working week. And this will be lab-specific training on the bicontainment measures, these will already be experienced scientists, I'd have thought.
Some comparisons, from my experience: - ONS approved researcher training (enables accessing various secure data stores with sensitive data): 1 day (probably about 5-6 hours) - Radiation protection training (I forget the name, but legal requirement for handling isotopes unsupervised when I did some wet chemistry dating work): 2 days (10-12 hours?) - Learning to drive: 12 hours of lessons, as I recall So, the lab training should be more. Failing to train driving properly, I may kill a few people. Failing to train radiation protection properly I may kill myself, maybe a handful of others. Could cause health problems through contamination for scores more. Data security unlikely to kill, but could compromise data for millions.
Allowing a 'gain in function' virus to leak could cause millions of deaths.
"I’ve been vilified, condemned, had a fake photo circulated of me holding a gun, and even my HAT has been accused of being intimidating! It’s why I know I am on course for victory in next week’s by-election."
On the face of it, he has a point. Events are consistent with his opponents being scared of him and getting desperate.
But they're also consistent with an effort to stir things up that is not limited to the relatively trifling matter of who represents B&S at Westminster or even who leads the Labour Party.
Stir things up? As if!
"I trended for days on social media as hordes of the trendiest liberals were deployed to paint ME as 'far-right.' Me, the boy born in a slum, who grew up in a council house, a former factory-worker, a fellow-traveller with Benn from 1973, a 50-year trades unionist, the leader of the Workers Party of Britain, 'far-right.' Ridiculous tripe."
Yeah, Gorgeous, but what about your actions?
He concludes his article by directing people to an article in the Daily Mail which he feels tells it how it is about the Labour party being "f***ed". A case of "Hurrah for the Workers' Party"?
I doubt he's far right, but you're right that his attempt to explain why not is weak. Unsurprisingly he tries to imply his background makes that impossible as though former factory workers cannot be far right.
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
What does Telegraph mean by support an extension? From 19 July or 5 July?
I don't see support for ending restrictions until hospitalisations start going down. At the moment we have -
Is there data on who is being hospitalised, in terms of 1 dose, 2 or none? And proportion of those figures hospitalised because of covid symptoms or hospitalised with something and testing positive through routine admission screening?
Interesting and unusually nuanced piece in the Politico about the intra-EU spat between Fr/De wanting to re-engage with Russia and the other countries saying "Non!".
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
Sounds from what others have said, the case is pretty clear for immediately starting the rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s.
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
Anderson told Bloomberg that she was impressed by the biocontainment lab at the institute. According to the virologist, researchers had to undergo 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.
“It’s very, very extensive,” Anderson said of the training.
45 hours does not sound extensive to me.
That's assuming it was 45 hours of actual training.
It's a fair bit, no? More than a normal (notional, at least) working week. And this will be lab-specific training on the bicontainment measures, these will already be experienced scientists, I'd have thought.
Some comparisons, from my experience: - ONS approved researcher training (enables accessing various secure data stores with sensitive data): 1 day (probably about 5-6 hours) - Radiation protection training (I forget the name, but legal requirement for handling isotopes unsupervised when I did some wet chemistry dating work): 2 days (10-12 hours?) - Learning to drive: 12 hours of lessons, as I recall So, the lab training should be more. Failing to train driving properly, I may kill a few people. Failing to train radiation protection properly I may kill myself, maybe a handful of others. Could cause health problems through contamination for scores more. Data security unlikely to kill, but could compromise data for millions.
Allowing a 'gain in function' virus to leak could cause millions of deaths.
How much training should that require ?
Enough to teach what needs to be taught (I was wrong to link it in my post to consequences). The biggest risk dealt with in my training was probably the data one, but there's not a great deal to be taught: don't write anything down from the screen, don't take screenshots, lock the pc whenever away, here's how to avoid disclosure in aggregate data. I've done much longer courses on coding or regression models where there's much more to learn, but much less risk if I don't learn it properly.
Anyone know the relative numbers who enter the UK on little boats, as opposed to coming on a plane as a tourist and then just forgetting to leave? Which seems like a much simpler way in.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
An exception is rented housing, where the checks are ferocious. A relative in her 60s who was born in Scotland and has lived all her life in Britain (but who hadn't bothered to renew her passport as she doesn't travel) had to struggle for weeks to get an estate agent to accept that she had a right to live in Britain. The agent was apologetic since he could see and hear that she was Scottish, but said he'd lose his job and his company could lose its licence to operate unless they could show they had required absolute proof.
How did she get her rental in the end, please?
Well, she's my wife (we live apart), and I played the "don't be ridiculous, I'm a former MP and we've been married for 20 years and lived in different places across Britain" card - I don't usually use my former job to sound important but in this case it seemed justified. She dug out an expired copy of her passport and the agent surrendered. A coy of her birth certificate would I think have worked too, but would have taken time as the original was long since lost.
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
What does Telegraph mean by support an extension? From 19 July or 5 July?
I don't see support for ending restrictions until hospitalisations start going down. At the moment we have -
Is there data on who is being hospitalised, in terms of 1 dose, 2 or none? And proportion of those figures hospitalised because of covid symptoms or hospitalised with something and testing positive through routine admission screening?
These things matter.
There is data on vaccination vs COVID - but not being published raw in the daily updates. Lots of people writing papers for publication.
As to the eternal question of admired to hospital with COVID vs admitted to hospital and found to have COVID.... no, we don't have data. Again, I believe that papers are being written....
Personally I think the Labour-Galloway gap (which is what the Ladbrokes bet is about) will be over 20 percentage points. i think it's free money, but of course DYOR.
1/5 on Labour beating Galloway?
I'd price it at 1/50 myself. Depends on Kim declaring before Thursday that she's an alien planning to destroy all human life.
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
Sounds from what others have said, the case is pretty clear for immediately starting the rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s.
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
Re: rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s
I *think* I agree. Would want some sort of scientific consensus on this.
But even then we must accept that parents will be hesitant and vaccine take up in this age group will be significantly less. My concern is that lower vaccine take up will then be used as rationale for maintaining restrictions on us all.
"I’ve been vilified, condemned, had a fake photo circulated of me holding a gun, and even my HAT has been accused of being intimidating! It’s why I know I am on course for victory in next week’s by-election."
On the face of it, he has a point. Events are consistent with his opponents being scared of him and getting desperate.
But they're also consistent with an effort to stir things up that is not limited to the relatively trifling matter of who represents B&S at Westminster or even who leads the Labour Party.
Stir things up? As if!
"I trended for days on social media as hordes of the trendiest liberals were deployed to paint ME as 'far-right.' Me, the boy born in a slum, who grew up in a council house, a former factory-worker, a fellow-traveller with Benn from 1973, a 50-year trades unionist, the leader of the Workers Party of Britain, 'far-right.' Ridiculous tripe."
Yeah, Gorgeous, but what about your actions?
He concludes his article by directing people to an article in the Daily Mail which he feels tells it how it is about the Labour party being "f***ed". A case of "Hurrah for the Workers' Party"?
I doubt he's far right, but you're right that his attempt to explain why not is weak. Unsurprisingly he tries to imply his background makes that impossible as though former factory workers cannot be far right.
Vladimiro Lenin Ilich Montesinos Torres says hello. He was an expert on Mao's Little Red Book and everything...
Anyone know the relative numbers who enter the UK on little boats, as opposed to coming on a plane as a tourist and then just forgetting to leave? Which seems like a much simpler way in.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
An exception is rented housing, where the checks are ferocious. A relative in her 60s who was born in Scotland and has lived all her life in Britain (but who hadn't bothered to renew her passport as she doesn't travel) had to struggle for weeks to get an estate agent to accept that she had a right to live in Britain. The agent was apologetic since he could see and hear that she was Scottish, but said he'd lose his job and his company could lose its licence to operate unless they could show they had required absolute proof.
How did she get her rental in the end, please?
Well, she's my wife (we live apart), and I played the "don't be ridiculous, I'm a former MP and we've been married for 20 years and lived in different places across Britain" card - I don't usually use my former job to sound important but in this case it seemed justified. She dug out an expired copy of her passport and the agent surrendered. A coy of her birth certificate would I think have worked too, but would have taken time as the original was long since lost.
THank you. Oh dear! One can see that it wouldn't take much more for the situation to become hopeless for many people, particularly the more disorganised or vulnerable.
Interesting and unusually nuanced piece in the Politico about the intra-EU spat between Fr/De wanting to re-engage with Russia and the other countries saying "Non!".
Worryingly exponential looking in the younger cohorts, but hugely, hugely encouraging in the way in which the vaccinated age groups are not seeming to grow at all. I know this is what we should expect, but it's good to see!
Anderson told Bloomberg that she was impressed by the biocontainment lab at the institute. According to the virologist, researchers had to undergo 45 hours of training to be certified to work independently in the lab.
“It’s very, very extensive,” Anderson said of the training.
45 hours does not sound extensive to me.
That's assuming it was 45 hours of actual training.
It's a fair bit, no? More than a normal (notional, at least) working week. And this will be lab-specific training on the bicontainment measures, these will already be experienced scientists, I'd have thought.
Some comparisons, from my experience: - ONS approved researcher training (enables accessing various secure data stores with sensitive data): 1 day (probably about 5-6 hours) - Radiation protection training (I forget the name, but legal requirement for handling isotopes unsupervised when I did some wet chemistry dating work): 2 days (10-12 hours?) - Learning to drive: 12 hours of lessons, as I recall So, the lab training should be more. Failing to train driving properly, I may kill a few people. Failing to train radiation protection properly I may kill myself, maybe a handful of others. Could cause health problems through contamination for scores more. Data security unlikely to kill, but could compromise data for millions.
Surely the length of training is largely in proportion to the difficulty of the task rather than the risks involved.
I would expect it to take longer to learn to fly a light aircraft than to learn to drive, as flying an aircraft is a more complex task, even though with a light aircraft almost all the risk accrues to myself or passengers voluntarily travelling with me, whilst there is a fairly high risk of poor car driving killing other unrelated parties.
If I'm handling a theoretical material which if dropped will detonate and destroy the facility, then its important I grasp this fact, and any rules about handling it which are therefore imposed. Its not necessary helpful for me to spend days walking round with an empty glass bottle practicing not dropping it! It may be I can learn what is required (eg always carry it in a surrounding container of neutralising material) in 15 minutes.
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
Sounds from what others have said, the case is pretty clear for immediately starting the rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s.
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
Re: rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s
I *think* I agree. Would want some sort of scientific consensus on this.
But even then we must accept that parents will be hesitant and vaccine take up in this age group will be significantly less. My concern is that lower vaccine take up will then be used as rationale for maintaining restrictions on us all.
Whatever% takeup would be better than none (herd wise), and needs to be my brother and niece's choice on vaccination for her - not the state's.
Captions please (fearties scared of Gorgeous George's lawyers are excused)
“Sometimes you're better off dead There's a gun in your hand and it's pointing at your head You think you're mad, too unstable Kicking in chairs and knocking down tables In a restaurant in a West End town Call the police, there's a mad man around Running down underground to a dive bar In a West End town”
On the basis of what is the (possibly mythical) origin of the name Pet Shop Boys, is the funnel for popping the gerbil down?
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
Sounds from what others have said, the case is pretty clear for immediately starting the rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s.
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
Re: rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s
I *think* I agree. Would want some sort of scientific consensus on this.
But even then we must accept that parents will be hesitant and vaccine take up in this age group will be significantly less. My concern is that lower vaccine take up will then be used as rationale for maintaining restrictions on us all.
Whatever% takeup would be better than none (herd wise), and needs to be my brother and niece's choice on vaccination for her - not the state's.
My daughters are quite serious about wanting the vaccine. Their peer group feels the same way, apparently.
The OECD’s review of Scotland’s schools was misleading, only spoke to ‘vested interests’ who were approved by the Scottish Government and ignored the SNP’s ‘intellectual vandalism’ of the curriculum, according to a top education expert.
Not sure about narrative that Javid's elevation is largely due to Carrie J's influence. Was it thanks to her that he was first 2010-intake MP in the cabinet? That he became home sec in 2018? That he won support of dozens of MPs in 2019 leadership election?
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
Sounds from what others have said, the case is pretty clear for immediately starting the rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s.
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
Re: rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s
I *think* I agree. Would want some sort of scientific consensus on this.
But even then we must accept that parents will be hesitant and vaccine take up in this age group will be significantly less. My concern is that lower vaccine take up will then be used as rationale for maintaining restrictions on us all.
Whatever% takeup would be better than none (herd wise), and needs to be my brother and niece's choice on vaccination for her - not the state's.
My daughters are quite serious about wanting the vaccine. Their peer group feels the same way, apparently.
What's quite funny is all the antivaxxers are all "my body, my choice" but when people actively want the vaccine and can't get it due to recommendations (Pregnant women earlier in the pandemic for instance) they're all "No no not THAT choice !"
Captions please (fearties scared of Gorgeous George's lawyers are excused)
“Sometimes you're better off dead There's a gun in your hand and it's pointing at your head You think you're mad, too unstable Kicking in chairs and knocking down tables In a restaurant in a West End town Call the police, there's a mad man around Running down underground to a dive bar In a West End town”
On the basis of what is the (possibly mythical) origin of the name Pet Shop Boys, is the funnel for popping the gerbil down?
I think it is certainly mythical. I seem to remember reading Neil Tennant was like WTF that's disgusting when someone suggested that as the origin of the name (the whole "practice" has been dismissed as an urban myth in any case). Apparently the name comes from some friends who used to own a pet shop and were referred to as that.
Same. Momentum Surrey must be a very different beast to Momentum on Teesside. They were (and still are so I hear) the polar opposite of what Nick describes. Finger-jabbing, eye-popping lunatics. I went to one meeting (as a CLP exec member to observe). The (then) local vice chair standing up angrily condemning the (then) local Labour MP was something to behold. "He's a privatiser!" I pointed out that he personally had organised and led a co-operative of GPs to takeover local services that had been awarded without tender to Virgin Healthcare, and she got even more eye-poppy and finger pointy. And then got applauded.
Then you see their activists (when they can be bothered) on the doorstep. Arguing with voters. Calling them names. Absolute mentalists.
Mmm. But if you leave aside the eye-popping (not sure how to measure that) you're describing what I'd call a lively debate. The vice-chair sounds unreasonable but I've been called worse than a privatiser and that's show business. If you argued that many left-wingers are one-sided in their views I wouldn't disagree, but not only left-wingers. And I do agree that the personalised flavour of the meeting sounds unpleasant.
Arguing with voters is interesting - where do you draw the line? Clare Short was widely admired for telling a racist that she didn't want his vote; my preference is to politely argue them down, and I've had some success in talking round even quite deranged-seeming people, like the chap who sent me a photoshopped picture of myself as a concentration camp victim (he was clearly nuts, but after extensive polite correspondence, he became quite friendly though still nuts). But there's a case for saying that if someone expresses really vile opinions to you, you're enabling them if you don't say so.
Worryingly exponential looking in the younger cohorts, but hugely, hugely encouraging in the way in which the vaccinated age groups are not seeming to grow at all. I know this is what we should expect, but it's good to see!
Despite all the scaremongering going on, particularly things like "double vaxxed people get covid", the vaccines work very well. Of course if you aren't vaccinated the situation is more perilous than before as Delta spreads far more easily, and is probably somewhat more harmful as well.
We in the UK are incredibly lucky that vaccination came just in time for us, the Kent strain was bad enough but if we were only just starting vaccinating now with Delta spreading we would would be in very deep trouble.
Not sure about narrative that Javid's elevation is largely due to Carrie J's influence. Was it thanks to her that he was first 2010-intake MP in the cabinet? That he became home sec in 2018? That he won support of dozens of MPs in 2019 leadership election?
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
Sounds from what others have said, the case is pretty clear for immediately starting the rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s.
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
Re: rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s
I *think* I agree. Would want some sort of scientific consensus on this.
But even then we must accept that parents will be hesitant and vaccine take up in this age group will be significantly less. My concern is that lower vaccine take up will then be used as rationale for maintaining restrictions on us all.
Whatever% takeup would be better than none (herd wise), and needs to be my brother and niece's choice on vaccination for her - not the state's.
Yes, your brother's (and sister in law's) and your niece's decision. 12 year olds should not be able to go get vaccinated without parental consent obviously.
They're going to have to do something about schools and exams. The chart above certainly tallies with my experience here in London where there seems to be a big pick up in school cases. My daughter is currently self isolating. They are already behind on GCSE content. If they start missing more school I don't think they can reasonably be expected to sit exams next year.
Interesting and unusually nuanced piece in the Politico about the intra-EU spat between Fr/De wanting to re-engage with Russia and the other countries saying "Non!".
Not sure about narrative that Javid's elevation is largely due to Carrie J's influence. Was it thanks to her that he was first 2010-intake MP in the cabinet? That he became home sec in 2018? That he won support of dozens of MPs in 2019 leadership election?
The leaflet that was circulating yesterday about SKS kneeling and being incredibly woke and proud of it purporting to be from the Labour party remains of interest. Cui bono? Who would be hoping that socially conservative Labour supporters might be annoyed by such positioning and look to undermine the current Labour leader by voting for someone else?
FWIW I think Galloway is a spent force. He had considerable traction in the Muslim community when they were incredibly angry about the Iraq war and the horrific consequences of that invasion. No doubt the smoldering resentment of how many died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria but there is not the current flame and the salutation of Saddam's indefatigability seems a long time ago. I see no signs of any new tunes. I agree with @Quincel
On your first paragraph, those leaflets on Starmer were a disgrace. I suspect they're not from Galloway, but the far right. Both Jayda Fransen and Ann Marie Waters are standing in B&S - in case anybody doesn't know, they both have links to BNP, Britain First, EDL, Tommy Robinson etc. On your second paragraph, I think you're right, though 'Palestine' remains a cause of great resentment for some.
I found a list of all 16 candidates here, with brief biographical details available by clicking on the names, in case anybody's interested:
Not sure about narrative that Javid's elevation is largely due to Carrie J's influence. Was it thanks to her that he was first 2010-intake MP in the cabinet? That he became home sec in 2018? That he won support of dozens of MPs in 2019 leadership election?
Doesn't this whole Lady MacBeth narrative on Carrie Symonds come from Dominic Cummings? He seems to have a weird obsession with her, there's something odd going on there.
Does anyone know how the logistics of Priti's Rwandan Gulag are going to work? Are the demandeurs d'asile getting plucked off the beach Dungeness, put on a bus to Stansted and then a charter flight to Kigali?
If traffic is bad on the M20 there may be time for a legal appeal.
Interesting and unusually nuanced piece in the Politico about the intra-EU spat between Fr/De wanting to re-engage with Russia and the other countries saying "Non!".
They're going to have to do something about schools and exams. The chart above certainly tallies with my experience here in London where there seems to be a big pick up in school cases. My daughter is currently self isolating. They are already behind on GCSE content. If they start missing more school I don't think they can reasonably be expected to sit exams next year.
Schools closed in Scotland for the summer, which is just as well. But perhaps you mean more generally.
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
Sounds from what others have said, the case is pretty clear for immediately starting the rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s.
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
Re: rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s
I *think* I agree. Would want some sort of scientific consensus on this.
But even then we must accept that parents will be hesitant and vaccine take up in this age group will be significantly less. My concern is that lower vaccine take up will then be used as rationale for maintaining restrictions on us all.
Whatever% takeup would be better than none (herd wise), and needs to be my brother and niece's choice on vaccination for her - not the state's.
My daughters are quite serious about wanting the vaccine. Their peer group feels the same way, apparently.
Yes, same here. But they know even less about the science and ethical concerns than I do. Peer pressure can't trump what is lowest risk approach for them. There will be arguments in households up and down the land over this.
I posted about this a couple of months ago. I have a 15 year old and a 17 year old, my default position is that I would not encourage them to be vaccinated until they are 18 and can make their own decision. But what if they demand to be vaccinated - do I refuse consent?
Interesting and unusually nuanced piece in the Politico about the intra-EU spat between Fr/De wanting to re-engage with Russia and the other countries saying "Non!".
Fantastic first line: "French President Emmanuel Macron thinks his fellow leaders from Poland and the Baltics are Russophobic,,.."
Now, there are plenty of proper historians on this site but I could have a wild stab at why that might be so.
No sh!t, Sherlock Macron!
The silly Eastern Europeans don't understand French style positional foreign policy. They are there to be traded by France as part of their foreign policy.
When the French intelligence services were discovered to be leaking NATO information to the Serb military during the Yugoslav conflict, they were almost upset by being called out on it. Mind you, the American response was.... interesting, if true.
Worryingly exponential looking in the younger cohorts, but hugely, hugely encouraging in the way in which the vaccinated age groups are not seeming to grow at all. I know this is what we should expect, but it's good to see!
Despite all the scaremongering going on, particularly things like "double vaxxed people get covid", the vaccines work very well. Of course if you aren't vaccinated the situation is more perilous than before as Delta spreads far more easily, and is probably somewhat more harmful as well.
We in the UK are incredibly lucky that vaccination came just in time for us, the Kent strain was bad enough but if we were only just starting vaccinating now with Delta spreading we would would be in very deep trouble.
Australia could be in the shit - delta seems to have got a foothold there.
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
Sounds from what others have said, the case is pretty clear for immediately starting the rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s.
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
Re: rollout of Pfizer to the over-12s
I *think* I agree. Would want some sort of scientific consensus on this.
But even then we must accept that parents will be hesitant and vaccine take up in this age group will be significantly less. My concern is that lower vaccine take up will then be used as rationale for maintaining restrictions on us all.
Whatever% takeup would be better than none (herd wise), and needs to be my brother and niece's choice on vaccination for her - not the state's.
My daughters are quite serious about wanting the vaccine. Their peer group feels the same way, apparently.
Awesome. There are large-scale, voluntary, rollouts of Pfizer in USA, UAE and Israel at the moment. It should become pretty clear if there are any genuine issues with it.
Comments
Maybe the key thing is superspreader events. Time and time again we've seen large scale gatherings caused by holidays and festivals (Italian ski trips last year, Holi in India this spring, now a Scottish outbreak apparently caused by Euro 2020 with massive surges in males aged 20-44). Avoid these big events and the little flares of growth seem to meander along without taking off. Some evidence from those indoor Trump rallies last year too. Like when you pitch yeast into a home brew, if you don't put enough in then sometimes it just doesn't take hold. If you chuck a load in it gets going quickly and chugs along.
Personally I think the Labour-Galloway gap (which is what the Ladbrokes bet is about) will be over 20 percentage points. i think it's free money, but of course DYOR.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/560477-last-foreign-scientist-to-work-at-wuhan-lab-what
I do think that Delta has encourage further vaccine take-up among the young here (which would be more undeserved luck for Boris).
I've been reading PB without commenting during this crisis. One thing that's amused and saddened me is seeing people declaring 'victory' for one country and 'failure' for another, based purely on political biases - and before the events have fully played out, as waves sweep over countries at varying rates.
On the other hand, there have been some excellent posters wrt Covid. Amongst others, Malmesbury has done a superb job on the stats, and so has NigelB on technical details, to name just two. Thanks to all of them.
GG writes:
"This fake fabricated photograph of me constitutes a criminal offence. Anyone retweeting it is committing a criminal offence. It has been reported to the police, to the @ElectoralCommUK and my solicitor will take legal action against its authors."
The photograph purports to show him brandishing a handgun.
GG also writes:
"Labour supporters are circulating fake photos of me holding guns including around my children and NOT ONE commentator has mentioned it".
Then you see their activists (when they can be bothered) on the doorstep. Arguing with voters. Calling them names. Absolute mentalists.
https://www.cityam.com/jd-sports-eyes-eu-warehouse-as-boss-warns-brexit-worse-than-feared/ https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1409425530672271360/photo/1
@The_IoD @cmi_managers @FT @DanielThomasLDN @BorisJohnson @cmi_ceo That means JD Sports (which imports trainers from Far East) will continue on its merry way, but less tax take for UK Exchequer, less jobs for UK workers...and while it's obviously worth it for companies to serve EU market of 465m...it is less obvious the other way /9
(fearties scared of Gorgeous George's lawyers are excused)
As to public perceptions they're inevitable and they have a consequent feedthrough into political effects.
There's a gun in your hand and it's pointing at your head
You think you're mad, too unstable
Kicking in chairs and knocking down tables
In a restaurant in a West End town
Call the police, there's a mad man around
Running down underground to a dive bar
In a West End town”
“It’s very, very extensive,” Anderson said of the training.
45 hours does not sound extensive to me.
That's assuming it was 45 hours of actual training.
No extraordinary general election in Sweden.
Instead PM Stefan Löfven resigns and thereby forces the Opposition to attempt to form a viable government. That seems to be profoundly unlikely, given parliamentary arithmetic.
That remains to be seen.
We know that much of Eastern Europe will be far less vaccinated and possibly France as well.
‘You lot’ indeed, don’t assume because someone calls out your nonsense they are automatically a Tory. I voted labour at every GE since 1987 and am perfectly comfortable with reasonable migration levels and reaching out to asylum seekers.
You lose the good points in a sea of dribbling rancid invective. You’re acting like the momentum activists you were speaking about earlier. It’s like being on Twitter.
You can in law now be legally a woman with a penis.
Most Asians expelled from Uganda who came to the UK were in possession of British passports of one type or another, and it was within 10 years of Ugandan independence. And they were refugees, forced out by Idi Amin's racist expulsion policy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/7/newsid_2492000/2492333.stm
You may have a point wrt to the Govt's policy, but to compare that to economic migration is strange.
A better analogy for Uganda would perhaps be the policy wrt UK passport holders from Hong Kong. Links already exist, and it is driven by government persecution.
As opposed to countries where you are being given stacks of free tests to do at home.
Some comparisons, from my experience:
- ONS approved researcher training (enables accessing various secure data stores with sensitive data): 1 day (probably about 5-6 hours)
- Radiation protection training (I forget the name, but legal requirement for handling isotopes unsupervised when I did some wet chemistry dating work): 2 days (10-12 hours?)
- Learning to drive: 12 hours of lessons, as I recall
So, the lab training should be more. Failing to train driving properly, I may kill a few people. Failing to train radiation protection properly I may kill myself, maybe a handful of others. Could cause health problems through contamination for scores more. Data security unlikely to kill, but could compromise data for millions.
Physician, heal thyself.
I did more than 45 hours’ training for it, over the past two weeks.
It is true that the UK has by far the largest Indian-extract community in Europe (1.4 milllion, I think the next is Italy at 50k), which is relevant.
To my eye the far bigger risks for the EU-27 are enforced opening of internal borders, and vaccine takeup.
Also, I wonder about the difference between our wave now, and a wave later in the year (though it hopefully won't happen).
We shall see.
FWIW I think Galloway is a spent force. He had considerable traction in the Muslim community when they were incredibly angry about the Iraq war and the horrific consequences of that invasion. No doubt the smoldering resentment of how many died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria but there is not the current flame and the salutation of Saddam's indefatigability seems a long time ago. I see no signs of any new tunes. I agree with @Quincel
I don't mean the politics, or the gumming-up-the-process technique of campaign groups.
Does the right for an immediate return exist? And can it be enforced practically?
UK: 47.5
Germany: 34.5
Spain: 34
Portugal: 31
Italy: 29.1
France: 27.5
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/jun/28/uk-covid-live-news-coronavirus-matt-hancock-boris-johnson-sajid-javid?page=with:block-60d97b3d8f083905e9de5c56#block-60d97b3d8f083905e9de5c56
This is significantly lower than previous results seen in May (86%)
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1409429283932618754?s=20
"I’ve been vilified, condemned, had a fake photo circulated of me holding a gun, and even my HAT has been accused of being intimidating! It’s why I know I am on course for victory in next week’s by-election."
On the face of it, he has a point. Events are consistent with his opponents being scared of him and getting desperate.
But they're also consistent with an effort to stir things up that is not limited to the relatively trifling matter of who represents B&S at Westminster or even who leads the Labour Party.
Stir things up? As if!
"I trended for days on social media as hordes of the trendiest liberals were deployed to paint ME as 'far-right.' Me, the boy born in a slum, who grew up in a council house, a former factory-worker, a fellow-traveller with Benn from 1973, a 50-year trades unionist, the leader of the Workers Party of Britain, 'far-right.' Ridiculous tripe."
Yeah, Gorgeous, but what about your actions?
He concludes his article by directing people to an article in the Daily Mail which he feels tells it how it is about the Labour party being "f***ed". A case of "Hurrah for the Workers' Party"?
Of course, you could illegally sneak them ashore using RIBs :-)
Does anyone know where can we plug in this Zyklon hose?
But the point is that people were assuming that the victim of the assault had committed a crime of deception - without considering the fact its entirely possible that she is legally a woman. And if she is legally a woman, then how would a crime of deception have occurred?
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/series/OHN/slough-house#author0
Are they amateur Ghostbusters?
How much training should that require ?
These things matter.
https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-russia-vladimir-putin-european-union/
What of primary schools and nurseries? They can’t bugger about on this with no plan, are they saying it’s important enough to keep cases down to close these places? Or no big deal and once older siblings are vaccinated then let rip.
As to the eternal question of admired to hospital with COVID vs admitted to hospital and found to have COVID.... no, we don't have data. Again, I believe that papers are being written....
I'd price it at 1/50 myself. Depends on Kim declaring before Thursday that she's an alien planning to destroy all human life.
I *think* I agree. Would want some sort of scientific consensus on this.
But even then we must accept that parents will be hesitant and vaccine take up in this age group will be significantly less. My concern is that lower vaccine take up will then be used as rationale for maintaining restrictions on us all.
"French President Emmanuel Macron thinks his fellow leaders from Poland and the Baltics are Russophobic,,.."
Now, there are plenty of proper historians on this site but I could have a wild stab at why that might be so.
Worryingly exponential looking in the younger cohorts, but hugely, hugely encouraging in the way in which the vaccinated age groups are not seeming to grow at all.
I know this is what we should expect, but it's good to see!
I would expect it to take longer to learn to fly a light aircraft than to learn to drive, as flying an aircraft is a more complex task, even though with a light aircraft almost all the risk accrues to myself or passengers voluntarily travelling with me, whilst there is a fairly high risk of poor car driving killing other unrelated parties.
If I'm handling a theoretical material which if dropped will detonate and destroy the facility, then its important I grasp this fact, and any rules about handling it which are therefore imposed. Its not necessary helpful for me to spend days walking round with an empty glass bottle practicing not dropping it! It may be I can learn what is required (eg always carry it in a surrounding container of neutralising material) in 15 minutes.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1409434577349775360?s=20
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1409440080192753666?s=20
Arguing with voters is interesting - where do you draw the line? Clare Short was widely admired for telling a racist that she didn't want his vote; my preference is to politely argue them down, and I've had some success in talking round even quite deranged-seeming people, like the chap who sent me a photoshopped picture of myself as a concentration camp victim (he was clearly nuts, but after extensive polite correspondence, he became quite friendly though still nuts). But there's a case for saying that if someone expresses really vile opinions to you, you're enabling them if you don't say so.
We in the UK are incredibly lucky that vaccination came just in time for us, the Kent strain was bad enough but if we were only just starting vaccinating now with Delta spreading we would would be in very deep trouble.
Now at the Court of King BoZo, Carrie Antionette's blessing is key.
I found a list of all 16 candidates here, with brief biographical details available by clicking on the names, in case anybody's interested:
https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/elections/parl.batley-and-spen.by.2021-07-01/batley-and-spen/
If traffic is bad on the M20 there may be time for a legal appeal.
I posted about this a couple of months ago. I have a 15 year old and a 17 year old, my default position is that I would not encourage them to be vaccinated until they are 18 and can make their own decision. But what if they demand to be vaccinated - do I refuse consent?
When the French intelligence services were discovered to be leaking NATO information to the Serb military during the Yugoslav conflict, they were almost upset by being called out on it. Mind you, the American response was.... interesting, if true.