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.
Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm sure the charts for England look similar. Schools are open for another few weeks down here and it seems that cases are really spreading.
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?
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).
We shall see.
Italy looks to have deaths and hospital occupancy near crossover with the UK on its way down and no huge signals that Delta is established yet.
The highest rates detected in any Italian province are below 50 per 100k at the moment, mainly in Sicily and other places in the South, which also have quite high positivity (up to 8% in some regions). These have been higher prevalence areas for a few weeks. There may an effect from Mediterranean immigration, but the high rate in Basilicata seems less obvious.
The one to watch out for is 5% positivity in Emilia-Romagna and a warm spot concentrated on Parma. According to the Indians in Italy Wikipedia page, 60% of the employment in the Parmesan industry is of Punjabi Sikhs, and so Parma could well be a likely direct Delta seeding spot for Italy.
The R for a packed unvaxxed pub must be about 30 lol.
There are cases in Australia with the Delta variant that have been traced where the contact is described as fleeting. None of this "2 metres for 15 minutes" nonsense, more like 15 seconds in the same room.
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?
My daughters were arguing away at the dinner table about adverse reactions vs Twitter anti-vax vs herd immunity. They are trying to inform themselves - as are many of their peers.
How many medications do you let them take - just because the doctor recommends it? How many other vaccinations?
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?
Spouses and partners will have influence. But when everything gets ascribed to them I call foul immediately.
There’s two issues with this particular partner.
She used to work in comms for the party, so she knows everyone professionally.
She has no formal role in No.10, but is widely believed to have a significant informal role, attending meetings etc. Rather like Mr Hancock’s lady friend, and her token role to get her a door pass.
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.
He knows better than them no doubt.
He does in fairness go on to explain that they have different histories but that in itself is unbelievably patronising and ignorant. The article suggests that they have different presents, some having to deal with the day to day criminality of the Putin regime and some happy to turn a blind eye to it.
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?
My daughters were arguing away at the dinner table about adverse reactions vs Twitter anti-vax vs herd immunity. They are trying to inform themselves - as are many of their peers.
How many medications do you let them take - just because the doctor recommends it? How many other vaccinations?
The medications they currently take and MMR vaccinations they had when they were young were agreed on the balance of probabilities to be best for them individually.
I don't think any doctor will actively recommend that a healthy under 18 year old gets vaccinated against Covid but I may be wrong.
Maybe That chart says a bit of the opposite? It’s almost as if locking the oldies away in lockdown restrictions or post restrictions fear, so they aren’t exposed to it so we don’t yet know?
It’s a fantastic chart. But is it showing how vaccines work or that how some older age groups just aren’t yet out there like they were?
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?
Spouses and partners will have influence. But when everything gets ascribed to them I call foul immediately.
There’s two issues with this particular partner.
She used to work in comms for the party, so she knows everyone professionally.
She has no formal role in No.10, but is widely believed to have a significant informal role, attending meetings etc. Rather like Mr Hancock’s lady friend, and her token role to get her a door pass.
Granted, but the level and vitriol of the briefing against her comes across as a stereotypical 'evil wife' trope.
I dont much like it, but if people are this worried about spousal influence then maybe the American approach is better
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:
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.
Yes, that's something I saw again and again with constituency problems. On the whole, the welfare state works pretty well if you're literate, have a computer, and are perfectly organised and well-informed about the options. If I were made homeless and penniless tomorrow I reckon I'd know what I needed to do, but many people who need help are not at all aware. And they get blocked by regulations and in some cases exploited by crooks.
That's where the much-derided constituency work of MPs plays a role. MPs usually know what to do (or who to ask) and have the authority to get it sorted. Ex-prisoner/refugee/care home resident/person X with dementia onset tends not to get listened to. X with the local MP threatening to go to the papers with a report on how he's being treated is in a much stronger position. Nor is that political - virtually any MP of any party will help if they can.
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.
I'm amazed they swallowed that. If my agent did that, they'd get the hairdryer treatment. Mine is to the letter, no exceptions. I wouldn't accept a personal letter from the Queen.
Since they are just an agent, they are acting on behalf of the LL, who will be responsible.
The penalties are vicious. £3000 civil penalty per tenant (like all Civil Penalties it is a bit of a cash cow for local authorities), and that is eg x5 in a 5 person household, and for all I know may be xX for several different mini-offences, and up to 5 years in prison, and a criminal record, if it is treated that way.
And it would be disclosable under the 'have you ever been found guilty of any offences under and housing legislation' question on any Landlord License form. (They never specify what 'housing legislation' comprises in the notes). Which is then a reason for denial of a license, and seriously damages the livelihood.
Hundreds have been fined, and the cost of the paperwork has to go on the rent as ever.
Obviously Local Authorities and Housing Associations are not treated as being in scope of the legislation, as they (presumably) have an 'equivalent'.
Maybe That chart says a bit of the opposite? It’s almost as if locking the oldies away in lockdown restrictions or post restrictions fear, so they aren’t exposed to it so we don’t yet know?
It’s a fantastic chart. But is it showing how vaccines work or that how some older age groups just aren’t yet out there like they were?
We have watched, week after week as the relative case rates in older people dropped, following the progress of the vaccination program through the population.
We even had "CROSSOVER!" several times on such charts....
The current situation is the reverse of how COVID was before - it is an old persons disease. Or was.
Mr. Dickson, is not a legitimate referendum a UK Government matter?
Not necessarily. Supreme Court May well have to decide, although the day after the SNP landslide last month Michael Gove said that HMG would not be taking this to court.
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.
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.
An expired passport should be accepted. You do not usually lose your right to live in the UK just because your passport expires.
The R for a packed unvaxxed pub must be about 30 lol.
There are cases in Australia with the Delta variant that have been traced where the contact is described as fleeting. None of this "2 metres for 15 minutes" nonsense, more like 15 seconds in the same room.
It reminds me of the early stages of Covid where one guy managed to infect everyone in a nightclub, there was lots of talk of certain people being superspreaders. Perhaps they had the delta variant.
Maybe That chart says a bit of the opposite? It’s almost as if locking the oldies away in lockdown restrictions or post restrictions fear, so they aren’t exposed to it so we don’t yet know?
It’s a fantastic chart. But is it showing how vaccines work or that how some older age groups just aren’t yet out there like they were?
We have watched, week after week as the relative case rates in older people dropped, following the progress of the vaccination program through the population.
We even had "CROSSOVER!" several times on such charts....
The current situation is the reverse of how COVID was before - it is an old persons disease. Or was.
I totally agree with you. It’s what the chart is saying I am questioning, not the vaccines. People reading the chart as though all age groups now live the same with jabs.
Even though what you call old or sick people can live without many lockdown restrictions, it doesn’t mean they are. If government declares less restrictions does that change people’s fear like a switch?
I might be wrong, but if I’m right we need to build some degree of self isolating in charts even after Freedom Day.
Nor have any of the charts got middle aged WFH lazy scrounges back to work with a passion yet.
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!".
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.
An expired passport should be accepted. You do not usually lose your right to live in the UK just because your passport expires.
Somewhere, a Jobsworth is writhing in agony from the whiplash caused by a broken clipboard.
"An expired passport should be accepted" ?!?
Next you will be suggesting that walking on the grass is actually legal......
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?
Ignorance is bliss! I just thought they looked like a PSB tribute act.
Maybe That chart says a bit of the opposite? It’s almost as if locking the oldies away in lockdown restrictions or post restrictions fear, so they aren’t exposed to it so we don’t yet know?
It’s a fantastic chart. But is it showing how vaccines work or that how some older age groups just aren’t yet out there like they were?
We have watched, week after week as the relative case rates in older people dropped, following the progress of the vaccination program through the population.
We even had "CROSSOVER!" several times on such charts....
The current situation is the reverse of how COVID was before - it is an old persons disease. Or was.
I totally agree with you. It’s what the chart is saying I am questioning, not the vaccines. People reading the chart as though all age groups now live the same with jabs.
Even though what you call old or sick people can live without many lockdown restrictions, it doesn’t mean they are. If government declares less restrictions does that change people’s fear like a switch?
I might be wrong, but if I’m right we need to build some degree of self isolating in charts even after Freedom Day.
Nor have any of the charts got middle aged WFH lazy scrounges back to work with a passion yet.
My Aunt, who lives in a sheltered block of flats, say that 97% of her fellow inmates have Colditz'd the fences and are gallivanting around.
If the numbers on Delta are vaguely right, they have been exposed. If nothing else, they use cabs non-stop....
Emily Maitlis breached new BBC Twitter guidelines with 'clearly controversial' retweet of Piers Morgan-"If failing to quarantine properly is punishable by 10yrs in prison, what is the punishment for failing to properly protect the country from a pandemic?” https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/emily-maitlis-twitter-account-february-2021
Not really worth being on Twitter if you work at the BBC if you're going to end up in a four month internal investigation for this retweet. (This is one of first sanctions under new BBC social media rules, brought in after government kept getting angry at BBC Twitter accounts.) https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1409450098292105217
I foresee an absolutely huge superspreader event in England tomorrow.
I do wonder if the government should be advising those that are not yet double-vaccinated that it would be unwise to watch England v. Germany inside a heaving pub or even a heaving household given the transmissibility of Delta.
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.
An expired passport should be accepted. You do not usually lose your right to live in the UK just because your passport expires.
I think an expired passport would only be acceptable for a British Citizen, and as of today EU/EEA Citizens. There is a new CoP coming in on July 1st. Not only an expired US passport. A separate proof of Right to Remain for the duration would be required, such as a biometric Residency Card. https://www.flagship-homes.co.uk/media/1692/right-to-rent-acceptable-documents.pdf
If she did not have the required docs/combo of docs, I *think* the LL/Agent has to report it to the Home Office. Ditto if the Right to Rent expires during the tenancy. Not to do so may well be offences.
This whole leaning tower of BS is one of the things that has made me much more sympathetic to Identity Cards.
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.
Yes, of course. I noted in another reply that I was wrong to link length of training with risks.
That article is one of the scariest things I have read in a long time. The capital flight from Scotland if this looks close to coming to pass would be irreparable. Our tax base could seriously collapse and the implied threat of stealing pensions to bank this madness will result in not only the money but many people leaving the country.
Maybe That chart says a bit of the opposite? It’s almost as if locking the oldies away in lockdown restrictions or post restrictions fear, so they aren’t exposed to it so we don’t yet know?
It’s a fantastic chart. But is it showing how vaccines work or that how some older age groups just aren’t yet out there like they were?
We have watched, week after week as the relative case rates in older people dropped, following the progress of the vaccination program through the population.
We even had "CROSSOVER!" several times on such charts....
The current situation is the reverse of how COVID was before - it is an old persons disease. Or was.
I totally agree with you. It’s what the chart is saying I am questioning, not the vaccines. People reading the chart as though all age groups now live the same with jabs.
Even though what you call old or sick people can live without many lockdown restrictions, it doesn’t mean they are. If government declares less restrictions does that change people’s fear like a switch?
I might be wrong, but if I’m right we need to build some degree of self isolating in charts even after Freedom Day.
Nor have any of the charts got middle aged WFH lazy scrounges back to work with a passion yet.
My Aunt, who lives in a sheltered block of flats, say that 97% of her fellow inmates have Colditz'd the fences and are gallivanting around.
If the numbers on Delta are vaguely right, they have been exposed. If nothing else, they use cabs non-stop....
Nice bit of anecdotal. I’ve got anecdotal from cricket membership says opposite. Both bits of anecdotal don’t actually proving disproving the question I am asking though.
Is reading the data making uniform assumption on behaviours? All horses taken to the ‘freedom water’ are all ages drinking?
I’m sorry such questions don’t fit the narrative you are creating and pushing, but it is a fair question.
"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.
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.
We still don't understand it well enough. Look at Sweden and the lacks of deaths they had during their third wave. Basically inexplicable given our current understanding of Covid.
Er, no. If the National Museum of Scotland wants to give back stuff, that's entirely up to them - but it does not remotely mean the British Museum has to too.....
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.
Cheers Nick. Agreed on what you have said, it should be Galloway only picking up a few votes. However, it does feel there is a toxic element in the B&S by-election and I think it was mentioned here of reports of Labour activists complaining about the environment and even eggs being thrown. That might be a very small minority causing a decent amount of trouble but those sorts of events happen when the atmosphere is febrile and there are definitely a few reasons - local and national - that feed into Galloway's narrative. I'm not betting on it anyway - Hartlepool seemed an easy one to call, this one far less so.
Yes, but nobody sensible thinks re-joining is a medium-term option. An alternative reading is that 47% think we should be closer to the EU, and 42% think we shouldn't, with only 22% wanting us to move further out into the Atlantic (assuming that's what "more distant" means).
Maybe That chart says a bit of the opposite? It’s almost as if locking the oldies away in lockdown restrictions or post restrictions fear, so they aren’t exposed to it so we don’t yet know?
It’s a fantastic chart. But is it showing how vaccines work or that how some older age groups just aren’t yet out there like they were?
We have watched, week after week as the relative case rates in older people dropped, following the progress of the vaccination program through the population.
We even had "CROSSOVER!" several times on such charts....
The current situation is the reverse of how COVID was before - it is an old persons disease. Or was.
I totally agree with you. It’s what the chart is saying I am questioning, not the vaccines. People reading the chart as though all age groups now live the same with jabs.
Even though what you call old or sick people can live without many lockdown restrictions, it doesn’t mean they are. If government declares less restrictions does that change people’s fear like a switch?
I might be wrong, but if I’m right we need to build some degree of self isolating in charts even after Freedom Day.
Nor have any of the charts got middle aged WFH lazy scrounges back to work with a passion yet.
My Aunt, who lives in a sheltered block of flats, say that 97% of her fellow inmates have Colditz'd the fences and are gallivanting around.
If the numbers on Delta are vaguely right, they have been exposed. If nothing else, they use cabs non-stop....
Nice bit of anecdotal. I’ve got anecdotal from cricket membership says opposite. Both bits of anecdotal don’t actually proving disproving the question I am asking though.
Is reading the data making uniform assumption on behaviours? All horses taken to the ‘freedom water’ are all ages drinking?
I’m sorry such questions don’t fit the narrative you are creating and pushing, but it is a fair question.
If the case rates moved as the vaccines moved through the population, it would be a very complex coincidence. One that has been maintained at multi country level for multiple months. Israel saw exactly the same thing, for example as have other countries that vaccinated their elderly populations first.
So either the coffin dodgers have become expert COVID dodgers to an incredible degree, across multiple countries. Or the vaccinations do what they are supposed to do.
That article is one of the scariest things I have read in a long time. The capital flight from Scotland if this looks close to coming to pass would be irreparable. Our tax base could seriously collapse and the implied threat of stealing pensions to bank this madness will result in not only the money but many people leaving the country.
O/t, of course, but glad to see you back Mr L. I've only just looked back in today....... gym and a bit of shopping ..... so don't know if you're still in hospital, back at home & resting or back to normality. Hope it's the latter, and best wishes.
Revealed: I understand Nissan will confirm as soon as this week details of its EV strategy for the UK, including the construction of a battery gigafactory in Sunderland - paving the way for thousands of the Japanese company's electric cars to be built in Britain every year. https://twitter.com/MarkKleinmanSky/status/1409455006600814596
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.
My take on doorstep run-ins was always to remember the need to get on and talk to the next person. Almost everyone has an opinion that is honestly gained no matter how mad it may be. You aren't going to win people over by telling them they should stop being lied to by the Daily Mail (as one example). if you run into an open racist like Claire Short in your example then note them off as against on the sheet and move on.
Er, no. If the National Museum of Scotland wants to give back stuff, that's entirely up to them - but it does not remotely mean the British Museum has to too.....
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.
Like most of their proposals it won't go further than the initial headlines.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
That article is one of the scariest things I have read in a long time. The capital flight from Scotland if this looks close to coming to pass would be irreparable. Our tax base could seriously collapse and the implied threat of stealing pensions to bank this madness will result in not only the money but many people leaving the country.
O/t, of course, but glad to see you back Mr L. I've only just looked back in today....... gym and a bit of shopping ..... so don't know if you're still in hospital, back at home & resting or back to normality. Hope it's the latter, and best wishes.
Back home and resting OKC. Thanks for the good wishes. I was genuinely lifted by the concern and interest shown on this site when things were difficult. Communities take lots of different forms these days but this is one of the better ones.
Yes, but nobody sensible thinks re-joining is a medium-term option. An alternative reading is that 47% think we should be closer to the EU, and 42% think we shouldn't, with only 22% wanting us to move further out into the Atlantic (assuming that's what "more distant" means).
A bit difficult to see how we could get 'more distant'.
Unless N. Ireland rejoins the rest of Ireland, and the Channel Tunnel is closed.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
It would be an interesting legal question as to when they could make that decision themselves - and would the GP be be bound to ask the parents first. 16?
On topic, a few in the right wing press have got hold of something purporting to be a labour leaflet that looks a bit naughty. Bigs up conservative links with Modi...
It might not be an official leaflet though so reserve judgement.
That article is one of the scariest things I have read in a long time. The capital flight from Scotland if this looks close to coming to pass would be irreparable. Our tax base could seriously collapse and the implied threat of stealing pensions to bank this madness will result in not only the money but many people leaving the country.
Leaving aside all the rest, I can see this one positively driving existing businesses away:
- A binding commitment on overseas companies under which they are obliged to offer first refusal to a management/worker takeover of a business in the event of the overseas owners deciding to close down production in Scotland. The commitment should also include a transfer or sharing of “intellectual property” (IP) such as product brands and patents.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
My son is 18 next month and has already been offered a vaccine a day before his birthday. He didn't even hesitate. Taking it was a no brainer. That age group have suffered far more disruption, loss and disappointment than the rest of us and, on the small sample of his pals, are utterly focused on seeing the back of this before it takes even more away from them.
He didn't even bother to seek my advice but I think that he is absolutely right about this. Vaccination is the price of freedom so pay it.
Revealed: I understand Nissan will confirm as soon as this week details of its EV strategy for the UK, including the construction of a battery gigafactory in Sunderland - paving the way for thousands of the Japanese company's electric cars to be built in Britain every year. https://twitter.com/MarkKleinmanSky/status/1409455006600814596
Are Nissan Renault planning to spend any money investing in their drivetrain? A gigafactory in Sunderland only works if they have an EV to sell that doesn't have decade old technology like the Leaf. Even the Ariya has a claimed 3.5 miles / kWh which in reality will be closer to 3 miles - what is it with new EVs being released with such awful efficiency?
Emily Maitlis breached new BBC Twitter guidelines with 'clearly controversial' retweet of Piers Morgan-"If failing to quarantine properly is punishable by 10yrs in prison, what is the punishment for failing to properly protect the country from a pandemic?” https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/emily-maitlis-twitter-account-february-2021
Not really worth being on Twitter if you work at the BBC if you're going to end up in a four month internal investigation for this retweet. (This is one of first sanctions under new BBC social media rules, brought in after government kept getting angry at BBC Twitter accounts.) https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1409450098292105217
BiB - seems sensible to me. Working at the BBC is a huge privilege, I doesn't seem like a huge sacrifice to have to be very careful about what you do on social media.
Er, no. If the National Museum of Scotland wants to give back stuff, that's entirely up to them - but it does not remotely mean the British Museum has to too.....
Revealed: I understand Nissan will confirm as soon as this week details of its EV strategy for the UK, including the construction of a battery gigafactory in Sunderland - paving the way for thousands of the Japanese company's electric cars to be built in Britain every year. https://twitter.com/MarkKleinmanSky/status/1409455006600814596
Are Nissan Renault planning to spend any money investing in their drivetrain? A gigafactory in Sunderland only works if they have an EV to sell that doesn't have decade old technology like the Leaf. Even the Ariya has a claimed 3.5 miles / kWh which in reality will be closer to 3 miles - what is it with new EVs being released with such awful efficiency?
They have a choice - adapt or die. Nearly all the worlds car makers have finally made that choice...
Totally O/T, I have been following the claim by Jim Bolger regarding doping in Irish Racing. If you remember Cheltenham this year Irish horses completely domintated and there were some jaw dropping levels of improvement by some horses. eg Flooring Porter in the Stayers Hurdle.
Now since Jim Bolgers statement the form of some of the top yards in Ireland has taken a complete nosedive and their horses are running dreadful.
Look at the Irish Derby at the weekend, the first three home were British trained and the O.Brien favourite finished tailed off.
"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.
That article is one of the scariest things I have read in a long time. The capital flight from Scotland if this looks close to coming to pass would be irreparable. Our tax base could seriously collapse and the implied threat of stealing pensions to bank this madness will result in not only the money but many people leaving the country.
Leaving aside all the rest, I can see this one positively driving existing businesses away:
- A binding commitment on overseas companies under which they are obliged to offer first refusal to a management/worker takeover of a business in the event of the overseas owners deciding to close down production in Scotland. The commitment should also include a transfer or sharing of “intellectual property” (IP) such as product brands and patents.
THE Scottish feminist campaigner being defended against a hate crime charge by SNP MP Joanna Cherry has endorsed Alex Salmond’s Alba Party.
Marion Millar said she had voted for Alba on the Central Scotland list at the recent Scottish election “because they stand up for my rights as a woman”.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
It would be an interesting legal question as to when they could make that decision themselves - and would the GP be be bound to ask the parents first. 16?
If they are deemed competent to make an informed consent, by weighing up the pro's and cons, then age per se does not matter. This is known as Gillick Competence, based on the legal precedent from the Eighties.
UK asks for extension of the chilled meats grace period. EU finally rubber-stamps the data adequacy decision. These are the building blocks for a new, less confrontational relationship.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
It would be an interesting legal question as to when they could make that decision themselves - and would the GP be be bound to ask the parents first. 16?
If they are deemed competent to make an informed consent, by weighing up the pro's and cons, then age per se does not matter. This is known as Gillick Competence, based on the legal precedent from the Eighties.
[Consent] protects the [health professional] from claims by the litigious whether they acquire it from their patient, who may be a minor over the age of 16 or a ‘Gillick competent’ child under that age, or from another person having parental responsibilities which include a right to consent to treatment of the minor.
Anyone who gives him consent may take it back, but the [health professional] only needs one and so long as they continue to have one they have the legal right to proceed.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
It would be an interesting legal question as to when they could make that decision themselves - and would the GP be be bound to ask the parents first. 16?
If they are deemed competent to make an informed consent, by weighing up the pro's and cons, then age per se does not matter. This is known as Gillick Competence, based on the legal precedent from the Eighties.
How has this become so very very toxic on the left. Grim stuff.
Well, if you hang out with people, their beliefs and attitudes can rub off. Particularly if your ideology prevent you from calling them out on the bad shit.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
It would be an interesting legal question as to when they could make that decision themselves - and would the GP be be bound to ask the parents first. 16?
If they are deemed competent to make an informed consent, by weighing up the pro's and cons, then age per se does not matter. This is known as Gillick Competence, based on the legal precedent from the Eighties.
[Consent] protects the [health professional] from claims by the litigious whether they acquire it from their patient, who may be a minor over the age of 16 or a ‘Gillick competent’ child under that age, or from another person having parental responsibilities which include a right to consent to treatment of the minor.
Anyone who gives him consent may take it back, but the [health professional] only needs one and so long as they continue to have one they have the legal right to proceed.
So the age of 16 does have some effect in this?
If over 16 then Gillick competence is assumed, if under 16 then it needs to be assessed.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
It would be an interesting legal question as to when they could make that decision themselves - and would the GP be be bound to ask the parents first. 16?
If they are deemed competent to make an informed consent, by weighing up the pro's and cons, then age per se does not matter. This is known as Gillick Competence, based on the legal precedent from the Eighties.
[Consent] protects the [health professional] from claims by the litigious whether they acquire it from their patient, who may be a minor over the age of 16 or a ‘Gillick competent’ child under that age, or from another person having parental responsibilities which include a right to consent to treatment of the minor.
Anyone who gives him consent may take it back, but the [health professional] only needs one and so long as they continue to have one they have the legal right to proceed.
So the age of 16 does have some effect in this?
If over 16 then Gillick competence is assumed, if under 16 then it needs to be assessed.
That matches with what I'd understood - that *preventing* a child over 16 making a medical decision of this kind (contraception being the classic) would be actually the issue.
Am starting to seriously wonder whether Hancock can hang on as an MP?
The Tories would just about hand on with the same swing to the Lib Dems as was achieved in Chesham and Amersham, and the LDs are starting from a much lower base here (And 3rd place) so such a swing is less likely. But I don't think more by-elections in southern defenses are wanted for the Tories.
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?
I hesitate to advise on someone else's family decisions, but I think at 15-17 with a potentially very serious illness around, it's reasonable to let them have the vaccination if they want to.
It would be an interesting legal question as to when they could make that decision themselves - and would the GP be be bound to ask the parents first. 16?
If they are deemed competent to make an informed consent, by weighing up the pro's and cons, then age per se does not matter. This is known as Gillick Competence, based on the legal precedent from the Eighties.
[Consent] protects the [health professional] from claims by the litigious whether they acquire it from their patient, who may be a minor over the age of 16 or a ‘Gillick competent’ child under that age, or from another person having parental responsibilities which include a right to consent to treatment of the minor.
Anyone who gives him consent may take it back, but the [health professional] only needs one and so long as they continue to have one they have the legal right to proceed.
So the age of 16 does have some effect in this?
If over 16 then Gillick competence is assumed, if under 16 then it needs to be assessed.
Isn't the age of 16 because that's the 'age of consent'. When I worked with Family Planning teams that was important, as many a '16' year old Basildon girl came asking for contraceptives.
Emily Maitlis breached new BBC Twitter guidelines with 'clearly controversial' retweet of Piers Morgan-"If failing to quarantine properly is punishable by 10yrs in prison, what is the punishment for failing to properly protect the country from a pandemic?” https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/emily-maitlis-twitter-account-february-2021
Not really worth being on Twitter if you work at the BBC if you're going to end up in a four month internal investigation for this retweet. (This is one of first sanctions under new BBC social media rules, brought in after government kept getting angry at BBC Twitter accounts.) https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1409450098292105217
BiB - seems sensible to me. Working at the BBC is a huge privilege, I doesn't seem like a huge sacrifice to have to be very careful about what you do on social media.
Privilege or not I dont see a problem with certain jobs you needing to be careful what you say as it can negatively impact your job and your organisation given the role it has. Other jobs are unavailable.
Revealed: I understand Nissan will confirm as soon as this week details of its EV strategy for the UK, including the construction of a battery gigafactory in Sunderland - paving the way for thousands of the Japanese company's electric cars to be built in Britain every year. https://twitter.com/MarkKleinmanSky/status/1409455006600814596
Are Nissan Renault planning to spend any money investing in their drivetrain? A gigafactory in Sunderland only works if they have an EV to sell that doesn't have decade old technology like the Leaf. Even the Ariya has a claimed 3.5 miles / kWh which in reality will be closer to 3 miles - what is it with new EVs being released with such awful efficiency?
They have a choice - adapt or die. Nearly all the worlds car makers have finally made that choice...
No no, they didn;t adapt, they led. The Leaf was a mould-breaking car when it came out in 2011, as to a lesser extent was the Zoe. Its just that they're still making the same car, and it looks like the new one uses the same very old school tech that has been left behind by others.
People focus on range, and in doing so miss efficiency. We don't talk about fossil cars that way - its how much fuel do they burn not how big is the fuel talk. Should be the same for EVs, where some of the companies finally adapting to EVs are bringing in chronically poor inefficient supply chains. VW's build quality and efficiency is so poor with the ID3/4 its almost as if they want their EVs to fail.
Privilege or not I dont see a problem with certain jobs you needing to be careful what you say as it can negatively impact your job and your organisation given the role it has. Other jobs are unavailable.
As a journalist she could ask a minister that question on Newsnight.
Why is she sanctioned for retweeting someone else asking it?
Does this mean all the 'isn't Galloway awful' pearl clutchers will have to get off the outrage bus?
Why? Galloway IS awful! That Labour have decided to join him in the gutter by putting *this* out demonstrates that they know they are losing and are prepared to try literally anything as a defence against Galloway hoovering up their voters.
I know that Nick confidently states that Galloway is nowhere. If so why have Labour been acting the way they have? This isn't even the first such leaflet.
EU Commission announces adoption of data adequacy re UK. Decisions include an unprecedented four-year 'sunset clause' and come into force today. Spokes: 'Personal data can now flow freely from the EU to the UK where it benefits from an essentially equivalent level of protection.'
Looking at the euro outright odds, the winner of England/Germany will almost certainly become the tournament favourite.
The draw England got in the Russia WC was pretty good but I don't think that I have ever seen such a distorted draw with pretty much all of the good teams on one side knocking 7 bells out of the others and a group of "hopefuls" on the other. One of those hopefuls will make the final against a team that has been through a war. They've got to have a chance.
Does this mean all the 'isn't Galloway awful' pearl clutchers will have to get off the outrage bus?
Galloway is awful. If he wasn't involved, trying to stoke exactly these sorts of divisions, Labour would have had the vote he's targeting sewn up and wouldn't have to resort to these sorts of tactics.
Anyway, Labour stooping to his level doesn't make Galloway any less awful.
Comments
The highest rates detected in any Italian province are below 50 per 100k at the moment, mainly in Sicily and other places in the South, which also have quite high positivity (up to 8% in some regions). These have been higher prevalence areas for a few weeks. There may an effect from Mediterranean immigration, but the high rate in Basilicata seems less obvious.
The one to watch out for is 5% positivity in Emilia-Romagna and a warm spot concentrated on Parma. According to the Indians in Italy Wikipedia page, 60% of the employment in the Parmesan industry is of Punjabi Sikhs, and so Parma could well be a likely direct Delta seeding spot for Italy.
How many medications do you let them take - just because the doctor recommends it? How many other vaccinations?
She used to work in comms for the party, so she knows everyone professionally.
She has no formal role in No.10, but is widely believed to have a significant informal role, attending meetings etc. Rather like Mr Hancock’s lady friend, and her token role to get her a door pass.
Here are the demands independent Scotland should make of foreign firms
https://www.thenational.scot/business/19402904.demands-independent-scotland-make-foreign-firms/
I don't think any doctor will actively recommend that a healthy under 18 year old gets vaccinated against Covid but I may be wrong.
It’s a fantastic chart. But is it showing how vaccines work or that how some older age groups just aren’t yet out there like they were?
I dont much like it, but if people are this worried about spousal influence then maybe the American approach is better
https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/1409432249674633218?s=20
That's where the much-derided constituency work of MPs plays a role. MPs usually know what to do (or who to ask) and have the authority to get it sorted. Ex-prisoner/refugee/care home resident/person X with dementia onset tends not to get listened to. X with the local MP threatening to go to the papers with a report on how he's being treated is in a much stronger position. Nor is that political - virtually any MP of any party will help if they can.
Since they are just an agent, they are acting on behalf of the LL, who will be responsible.
The penalties are vicious. £3000 civil penalty per tenant (like all Civil Penalties it is a bit of a cash cow for local authorities), and that is eg x5 in a 5 person household, and for all I know may be xX for several different mini-offences, and up to 5 years in prison, and a criminal record, if it is treated that way.
The Home Office have a 38 page document just for the "penalties".
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/934469/right-to-rent-landlords-v7.0-gov-uk.pdf
And it would be disclosable under the 'have you ever been found guilty of any offences under and housing legislation' question on any Landlord License form. (They never specify what 'housing legislation' comprises in the notes). Which is then a reason for denial of a license, and seriously damages the livelihood.
Hundreds have been fined, and the cost of the paperwork has to go on the rent as ever.
Obviously Local Authorities and Housing Associations are not treated as being in scope of the legislation, as they (presumably) have an 'equivalent'.
We even had "CROSSOVER!" several times on such charts....
The current situation is the reverse of how COVID was before - it is an old persons disease. Or was.
There’s more than an air of misogyny about it.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scotrail-claps-back-after-complaint-over-rainbow-pride-train?top
Meeting was to discuss @GoodLawProject challenge of Covid-19 tests contract
Officials told it would be difficult to access evidence from Hancock + Lord Bethell https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1408852819680051202 https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1409433086962634758/photo/1
Even though what you call old or sick people can live without many lockdown restrictions, it doesn’t mean they are. If government declares less restrictions does that change people’s fear like a switch?
I might be wrong, but if I’m right we need to build some degree of self isolating in charts even after Freedom Day.
Nor have any of the charts got middle aged WFH lazy scrounges back to work with a passion yet.
...they insist on an unnecessarily tough policy toward Moscow out of misplaced paranoia....
Really.
So we are just going to stop using plastics and other oils based products then, just like that.
The whole article is just bonkers. No businesses in their right mind would move to Scotland.
"An expired passport should be accepted" ?!?
Next you will be suggesting that walking on the grass is actually legal......
If the numbers on Delta are vaguely right, they have been exposed. If nothing else, they use cabs non-stop....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/emily-maitlis-twitter-account-february-2021
Not really worth being on Twitter if you work at the BBC if you're going to end up in a four month internal investigation for this retweet. (This is one of first sanctions under new BBC social media rules, brought in after government kept getting angry at BBC Twitter accounts.) https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1409450098292105217
I do wonder if the government should be advising those that are not yet double-vaccinated that it would be unwise to watch England v. Germany inside a heaving pub or even a heaving household given the transmissibility of Delta.
Only 27% of Brits want to re-join the EU
"Which comes closest to your view?"
Re-join EU 27%
Stay out but get closer 20%
Stay as we are 20%
Stay out & get more distant 22%
Opinium, don't knows exlc.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1409447378269134850?s=20
https://www.flagship-homes.co.uk/media/1692/right-to-rent-acceptable-documents.pdf
If she did not have the required docs/combo of docs, I *think* the LL/Agent has to report it to the Home Office. Ditto if the Right to Rent expires during the tenancy. Not to do so may well be offences.
This whole leaning tower of BS is one of the things that has made me much more sympathetic to Identity Cards.
Is reading the data making uniform assumption on behaviours? All horses taken to the ‘freedom water’ are all ages drinking?
I’m sorry such questions don’t fit the narrative you are creating and pushing, but it is a fair question.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19402893.pressure-grows-uk-hand-back-elgin-marbles-scottish-decision/
But it’s not- v big difference between a prime minister axing a minister as sanction and a minister resigning for political pressure.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1409454274090876929
So either the coffin dodgers have become expert COVID dodgers to an incredible degree, across multiple countries. Or the vaccinations do what they are supposed to do.
Hope it's the latter, and best wishes.
https://twitter.com/MarkKleinmanSky/status/1409455006600814596
Unless N. Ireland rejoins the rest of Ireland, and the Channel Tunnel is closed.
It might not be an official leaflet though so reserve judgement.
- A binding commitment on overseas companies under which they are obliged to offer first refusal to a management/worker takeover of a business in the event of the overseas owners deciding to close down production in Scotland. The commitment should also include a transfer or sharing of “intellectual property” (IP) such as product brands and patents.
He didn't even bother to seek my advice but I think that he is absolutely right about this. Vaccination is the price of freedom so pay it.
Understand the desire for optimism and really hope he's right but this feels like a hostage to fortune. https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1409455133788880898
Now since Jim Bolgers statement the form of some of the top yards in Ireland has taken a complete nosedive and their horses are running dreadful.
Look at the Irish Derby at the weekend, the first three home were British trained and the O.Brien favourite finished tailed off.
There is definitely something going on.
How nice for them.
https://twitter.com/RicHolden/status/1409444990019854340
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/73c98341-6f2c-48ea-8c02-33b3c7538cb8
THE Scottish feminist campaigner being defended against a hate crime charge by SNP MP Joanna Cherry has endorsed Alex Salmond’s Alba Party.
Marion Millar said she had voted for Alba on the Central Scotland list at the recent Scottish election “because they stand up for my rights as a woman”.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19403612.marion-millar-scottish-feminist-charged-hate-crime-backs-salmonds-alba-party/?ref=twtrec
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962726/
https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1409457574198534148?s=20
How has this become so very very toxic on the left. Grim stuff.
Anyone who gives him consent may take it back, but the [health professional] only needs one and so long as they continue to have one they have the legal right to proceed.
So the age of 16 does have some effect in this?
Effective, definitely
It's a vicious circle. The worse Labour do with voters who aren't part of some bloc, the more they court the bloc votes.
I said the other day, I'd vote Labour in B&S to try and prevent Galloway getting a victory. But not if Labour are doing things like this.
People focus on range, and in doing so miss efficiency. We don't talk about fossil cars that way - its how much fuel do they burn not how big is the fuel talk. Should be the same for EVs, where some of the companies finally adapting to EVs are bringing in chronically poor inefficient supply chains. VW's build quality and efficiency is so poor with the ID3/4 its almost as if they want their EVs to fail.
Wonder why he's bothered!
Why is she sanctioned for retweeting someone else asking it?
I know that Nick confidently states that Galloway is nowhere. If so why have Labour been acting the way they have? This isn't even the first such leaflet.
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1409460224814194689?s=20
Anyway, Labour stooping to his level doesn't make Galloway any less awful.