Quite who made the decision to allow them to go clubbing in Cyprus like that...
The crew will become unmanageable without a run ashore (an RN tradition since early 18th C. since when standards of behaviour have not improved) particularly on a long peacetime cruise. The Captain can't just tell them all to stay in their bunks and have a wank when they could be in Limassol having a punch up and getting a dose.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I suggest that the 'Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture', certainly in England, is due to driving people off the land and into industrial work in the late 18th & throughout the 19th Centuries.
This is the traditional reason cited, and it certainly accounts for a lot. But it’s not the full story. Why is American food similarly “poor” when - until the later 19th century - it was fundamentally an agricultural country?
As I understand it, and I'm only an amateur historian, to some degree similar conditions applied in the US; either people 'out on the range', or crowded together in cities.
Ok what about NZ? Food growing up was abysmal. You could pretty much only buy one type of cheese.
My guess:
1. English climate 2. Protestantism 3. Industrialisation/urbanisation.
(1) and (2) conspired to create a generally sub-par Anglo food culture. (3) was the nail in the coffin from a U.K. point of view.
On the brighter side, the U.K. does good piquant sauces and pastes: think worcestershire, hot english mustard, marmite, anchovy relish.
Think Maori food was OK, although there's little native animal protein. British settlers were often, although by no means exclusively, from an urban background, AIUI. So I'd agree about 3.
Not sure about Protestantism; do you mean tasty food was sinful?
Would definitely not agree about marmite, though.
Maori food was incredibly basic. There is essentially no Maori “cuisine” which has survived to the modern day.
I don’t think British settlers *were* from a very urban background actually - at least before WW2.
Tended to be more rural types who thought they could at least have a go at farming.
I have a book on this somewhere...
Ah, obliged. Thanks. Always willing to learn.
Have a cousin who worked for one of the Maori tribes, and to be fair he's never mentioned their food. Must ask.
I believe part of their problem was they polished off the moa fairly soon after arriving on the islands and there were never any mammals, so limited raw material.
Yes; that did for the Haast eagle, too. However the Maori did ..... and do .....eat shellfish and fish.
To feed a family of four at McDonalds costs the better part of £20 nowadays.
To go to the Co-Op, or Aldi, or Tesco's and get some fresh veg and meat and prepare a fresh meal can be done considerably cheaper.
People are buying at McDonalds and others because its convenient, not because they can't afford to cook at home.
+1
People are going to McDonalds because they don't have time to cook at home. Both parents work all day and they don't have time to cook, it's quite simple.
This goes back to education again really, teach people how to cook meals quickly.
We have a recipe book for soups that we actually use, a slow cooker that we often use, a weekly delivery of organic vegetables that we enjoy working out how to use the random and varying contents...
But yesterday evening we ordered fish and chips (from Newhaven Fishmarket) to be delivered by deliveroo, because we were both too knackered to make chickpea and coriander burgers with stuff to accompany.
As much as anything we were tired of thinking. I spent too long arguing on here most likely.
On topic: You'd think if there was anything Starmer might be genuinely passionate about, given his background, it would be the rule of law, and preserving our freedoms under it.
Where is the leader who will lead the opposition to the government's authoritarianism?
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
A total of 117 double jabbed people have died in 6 months.....those are the facts. Unless you think PHE are lying.
You are a bright bloke, you must surely understand when it is stated a vaccine is 80% efficient against infection, that means there are still going to be significant number of infections.
The point is being double jabbed then also massively reduces chance thay covid goes south and you end up in hospital and even more so dying from it.
I'd love to know what the critics think the alternative is. The vaccines are as good as it gets, hanging on for even better vaccines is basically a non-starter. The current restrictions are ineffective against Delta, in fact it's debatable that any NPIs we have used up til now will stop Delta, so maintaining ineffective restrictions is close to pointless. Even countries that have so far had a "good pandemic" are now getting largish outbreaks thanks to the much higher transmisibility of Delta, and Delta won't be the end-point for the virus it will likely become fitter yet.
So what is the alternative plan? Chinese style lockdowns for months on end? Permanently closing whole swathes of the economy? Remote education and work indefinitely?
Nobody likes the situation we are in, and I would love there to be a better plan than vaccinating and reopening, but I don't see it. We've basically reached our limits for fighting the virus, about the only thing that might change that is a super-effective therapy, but how long do we wait for that? It could be years away, or never arrive.
People perception of risk seems to have gone totally out of kilter. We don't wake up every morning totally consumed by chances of a heart attack, cancer, even a car accident etc, which kill huge numbers of people and if you get cancer your chances aren't anywhere near as good as vaccinated against covid.
I am not suggesting we all go nuts. But people reporting i know somebody, they got it despite being jabbed....well no shit sherlock. Vaccine effectiveness of 60-80% from catching it, nobody claimed you just got an invincibility shield.
Bur, we don't breathlessly report every person we know who has every other disease under the sun.
The reality is most of us are going to be getting covid at some point.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
That is frankly a ridiculous statement.
From the latest PHE reports, a total of 117 double jabbed people have died in 6 months.....those are the facts. Unless you think PHE are lying. This number will increase, but it is a fraction of what it was before vaccination. CFR was beteen 0.1 and 0.2% no vaccine, i believe the latest estimate is 0.0085% if double jabbed.
You are a bright bloke, you must surely understand when it is stated a vaccine is 80% efficient against infection, that means there are still going to be significant number of infections.
The point is being double jabbed then also massively reduces chance thay covid goes south and you end up in hospital and even more so dying from it.
That doesn't look right. Could you check your numbers?
I am also trying to lose weight. Have always been chunky, but last year took a horrible toll thanks to a combination of depression, comfort eating and Sertraline.
I need to lose about 20kg to get back to what I had as a stable weight back in 2017 or so. Enjoy exercise but left ankle / right knee unhappy at the moment. What I am doing is intermittent fasting. The odd 24 hour one, but most working days I have a small bowl of (healthy) cereal and then nothing until dinner.
Does seem to work, 4.5 off so far, though will need to see how it plays out longer term. If nothing else an end to incessant grazing during the day is a Good Thing, as is breaking my reliance on sweeteners in tea / coffee.
For info Surgeries in Hampshire were advised last light that Booster Jabs will start in September on a 15 week period. Basically the same as before with the most vunerable first working down to anyone over 50.
I am also trying to lose weight. Have always been chunky, but last year took a horrible toll thanks to a combination of depression, comfort eating and Sertraline.
I need to lose about 20kg to get back to what I had as a stable weight back in 2017 or so. Enjoy exercise but left ankle / right knee unhappy at the moment. What I am doing is intermittent fasting. The odd 24 hour one, but most working days I have a small bowl of (healthy) cereal and then nothing until dinner.
Does seem to work, 4.5 off so far, though will need to see how it plays out longer term. If nothing else an end to incessant grazing during the day is a Good Thing, as is breaking my reliance on sweeteners in tea / coffee.
Cutting out grazing is very helpful in losing weight.
Father-in-law was described as a faddy eater; never ate meat, never ate potatoes other than as mash or chips and dozens of other things, including, notably, pasta. How he managed in the war, during his time in the RAF we don't know. We knew Alzheimers had really got him when we arrived in the Care Home one day to find him, in his late 70's, eating spaghetti on toast! No-one else in the family took after him except his eldest gt-grandson (whom he never knew) who as a child was incredibly awkward. His mother, our daughter tried everything but he just wouldn't. However, he improved when he went to Uni and had to cook for himself and now he's married he and his wife seem to eat totally normally
Our little 'un is a bit of a faddy eater - we have enough variety to give him a different meal each day of the week, but the menu is the same week after week. He does eat fruit though, which is a relief. It used to be a nightmare taking him anywhere, as he would only eat ham sandwiches.
Talking to other parents, he isn't as bad as some - one friend of his only eats chicken nuggets and potato waffles, and only drinks water. Not chips. Not pasta. Not salad. He seems fine on it. Other kids apparently eat anything put down in front of them.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
It's absolutely rife. An absolute disaster zone at my kids' schools. I recently needed to borrow a cat basket to go to the vet (cats have grown and can no longer share) and realised literally everyone I know with a cat in my town has covid. Most of them - adults, anyway - jabbed.
But I don't think the response should be to delay reopening. It's spreading like wildfire, and indubitably remains a very nasty disease - but our understanding is that due to the extent of vaccination of vulnerable groups, the NHS is no longer at risk and therefore those of us who rely on its services are no longer at risk.
If the risks back in 2020 had been those now, we would not be imposing the sort of restrictions we are under at the moment. We might be advising the vulnerable to shield, advising that masks might be advisable on public transport - exactly what is being advised after next Monday.
We would not be saying anything so draconian as no more than 6 people in your house, or making it illegal not to wear masks in certain circumstances.
I have to question the "NHS is not at risk" line. Various hospitals are at absolute breaking point - a deadly combination of a spike in hospitalisations and staff having to self-isolate.
As an example. RVI in Newcastle has 9.5% of nurses self-isolating and thus not working. "The hospital is on its knees" from a senior Doctor there. Staff now being instructed to delete the track and trace app for fear that very quickly they won't have sufficient staff to be safe.
And this is before we unmask and unlock and prompt a huge surge.
The key to this is to stop isolating double jabbed staff. Let the test before work - if clear, in they come.
The problem is that we have growing examples of (a) double-jabbed getting sick with Covid and (b) double-jabbed can transmit Covid
We're back to rhetoric vs reality. Being double-jabbed does not make you immune. Allowing Covid to run through our hospitals, transmitted via the medical staff would be fucking stupid.
No-one's saying people with covid should come into work.
Just that we should stop isolating the double-jabbed who come into contact with someone who tests positive once they have tested negative.
Ten days isolation for just coming into contact with a case is overkill.
I am also trying to lose weight. Have always been chunky, but last year took a horrible toll thanks to a combination of depression, comfort eating and Sertraline.
I need to lose about 20kg to get back to what I had as a stable weight back in 2017 or so. Enjoy exercise but left ankle / right knee unhappy at the moment. What I am doing is intermittent fasting. The odd 24 hour one, but most working days I have a small bowl of (healthy) cereal and then nothing until dinner.
Does seem to work, 4.5 off so far, though will need to see how it plays out longer term. If nothing else an end to incessant grazing during the day is a Good Thing, as is breaking my reliance on sweeteners in tea / coffee.
Cutting out grazing is very helpful in losing weight.
Eating snacks while bored or just as a social activity etc is a real problem.
I am also trying to lose weight. Have always been chunky, but last year took a horrible toll thanks to a combination of depression, comfort eating and Sertraline.
I need to lose about 20kg to get back to what I had as a stable weight back in 2017 or so. Enjoy exercise but left ankle / right knee unhappy at the moment. What I am doing is intermittent fasting. The odd 24 hour one, but most working days I have a small bowl of (healthy) cereal and then nothing until dinner.
Does seem to work, 4.5 off so far, though will need to see how it plays out longer term. If nothing else an end to incessant grazing during the day is a Good Thing, as is breaking my reliance on sweeteners in tea / coffee.
I'm at the stage with my running where I'm not losing any more weight, and whatever I eat just gets shed off. 18 miles yesterday in two morning runs; 1,369 miles run so far this year.
The thing is, I really want to shed another 5kg (I'm hovering on the border between normal and overweight), but I just cannot seem to do it...
Father-in-law was described as a faddy eater; never ate meat, never ate potatoes other than as mash or chips and dozens of other things, including, notably, pasta. How he managed in the war, during his time in the RAF we don't know. We knew Alzheimers had really got him when we arrived in the Care Home one day to find him, in his late 70's, eating spaghetti on toast! No-one else in the family took after him except his eldest gt-grandson (whom he never knew) who as a child was incredibly awkward. His mother, our daughter tried everything but he just wouldn't. However, he improved when he went to Uni and had to cook for himself and now he's married he and his wife seem to eat totally normally
Our little 'un is a bit of a faddy eater - we have enough variety to give him a different meal each day of the week, but the menu is the same week after week. He does eat fruit though, which is a relief. It used to be a nightmare taking him anywhere, as he would only eat ham sandwiches.
Talking to other parents, he isn't as bad as some - one friend of his only eats chicken nuggets and potato waffles, and only drinks water. Not chips. Not pasta. Not salad. He seems fine on it. Other kids apparently eat anything put down in front of them.
Goodness knows what makes all the kids different.
I think its just the modern world. During the war and post war period when food was short, were children faddy eaters then? They were served up their dinner and if they didn't eat it there was nothing else. Now there is always something else.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
It's absolutely rife. An absolute disaster zone at my kids' schools. I recently needed to borrow a cat basket to go to the vet (cats have grown and can no longer share) and realised literally everyone I know with a cat in my town has covid. Most of them - adults, anyway - jabbed.
But I don't think the response should be to delay reopening. It's spreading like wildfire, and indubitably remains a very nasty disease - but our understanding is that due to the extent of vaccination of vulnerable groups, the NHS is no longer at risk and therefore those of us who rely on its services are no longer at risk.
If the risks back in 2020 had been those now, we would not be imposing the sort of restrictions we are under at the moment. We might be advising the vulnerable to shield, advising that masks might be advisable on public transport - exactly what is being advised after next Monday.
We would not be saying anything so draconian as no more than 6 people in your house, or making it illegal not to wear masks in certain circumstances.
I have to question the "NHS is not at risk" line. Various hospitals are at absolute breaking point - a deadly combination of a spike in hospitalisations and staff having to self-isolate.
As an example. RVI in Newcastle has 9.5% of nurses self-isolating and thus not working. "The hospital is on its knees" from a senior Doctor there. Staff now being instructed to delete the track and trace app for fear that very quickly they won't have sufficient staff to be safe.
And this is before we unmask and unlock and prompt a huge surge.
The key to this is to stop isolating double jabbed staff. Let the test before work - if clear, in they come.
The problem is that we have growing examples of (a) double-jabbed getting sick with Covid and (b) double-jabbed can transmit Covid
We're back to rhetoric vs reality. Being double-jabbed does not make you immune. Allowing Covid to run through our hospitals, transmitted via the medical staff would be fucking stupid.
No-one's saying people with covid should come into work.
Just that we should stop isolating the double-jabbed who come into contact with someone who tests positive once they have tested negative.
Ten days isolation for just coming into contact with a case is overkill.
Precisely.
Don't come into work if you have the flu, or vomitting or diarrhea is fairly standard. Covid needs to be like that.
Don't come into work because nine days ago you were in contact with someone who was vomitting, or had the flu or diarrhea even though you're not yourself is never how we operate. Not should it be with Covid anymore.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
A total of 117 double jabbed people have died in 6 months.....those are the facts. Unless you think PHE are lying.
You are a bright bloke, you must surely understand when it is stated a vaccine is 80% efficient against infection, that means there are still going to be significant number of infections.
The point is being double jabbed then also massively reduces chance thay covid goes south and you end up in hospital and even more so dying from it.
I'd love to know what the critics think the alternative is. The vaccines are as good as it gets, hanging on for even better vaccines is basically a non-starter. The current restrictions are ineffective against Delta, in fact it's debatable that any NPIs we have used up til now will stop Delta, so maintaining ineffective restrictions is close to pointless. Even countries that have so far had a "good pandemic" are now getting largish outbreaks thanks to the much higher transmisibility of Delta, and Delta won't be the end-point for the virus it will likely become fitter yet.
So what is the alternative plan? Chinese style lockdowns for months on end? Permanently closing whole swathes of the economy? Remote education and work indefinitely?
Nobody likes the situation we are in, and I would love there to be a better plan than vaccinating and reopening, but I don't see it. We've basically reached our limits for fighting the virus, about the only thing that might change that is a super-effective therapy, but how long do we wait for that? It could be years away, or never arrive.
People perception of risk seems to have gone totally out of kilter. We don't wake up every morning totally consumed by chances of a heart attack, cancer, even a car accident etc, which kill huge numbers of people and if you get cancer your chances aren't anywhere near as good as vaccinated against covid.
I am not suggesting we all go nuts. But people reporting i know somebody, they got it despite being jabbed....well no shit sherlock. Vaccine effectiveness of 60-80% from catching it, nobody claimed you just got an invincibility shield.
Bur, we don't breathlessly report every person we know who has every other disease under the sun.
The reality is most of us are going to be getting covid at some point.
And how many of us will then suffer Long Covid? Something so new and complex that the medics don't understand it. But don't worry everyone, most of us will get Covid, nothing to worry about.
I think that the government will need more than a nudge unit to get people to revert back to status quo ante.
The reality is most of us are going to be getting covid at some point.
Right. Unfortunately the vast majority of people still don't seem to have grasped that "living with covid" doesn't mean for a few more months but forever.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
It's absolutely rife. An absolute disaster zone at my kids' schools. I recently needed to borrow a cat basket to go to the vet (cats have grown and can no longer share) and realised literally everyone I know with a cat in my town has covid. Most of them - adults, anyway - jabbed.
But I don't think the response should be to delay reopening. It's spreading like wildfire, and indubitably remains a very nasty disease - but our understanding is that due to the extent of vaccination of vulnerable groups, the NHS is no longer at risk and therefore those of us who rely on its services are no longer at risk.
If the risks back in 2020 had been those now, we would not be imposing the sort of restrictions we are under at the moment. We might be advising the vulnerable to shield, advising that masks might be advisable on public transport - exactly what is being advised after next Monday.
We would not be saying anything so draconian as no more than 6 people in your house, or making it illegal not to wear masks in certain circumstances.
I have to question the "NHS is not at risk" line. Various hospitals are at absolute breaking point - a deadly combination of a spike in hospitalisations and staff having to self-isolate.
As an example. RVI in Newcastle has 9.5% of nurses self-isolating and thus not working. "The hospital is on its knees" from a senior Doctor there. Staff now being instructed to delete the track and trace app for fear that very quickly they won't have sufficient staff to be safe.
And this is before we unmask and unlock and prompt a huge surge.
The key to this is to stop isolating double jabbed staff. Let the test before work - if clear, in they come.
The problem is that we have growing examples of (a) double-jabbed getting sick with Covid and (b) double-jabbed can transmit Covid
We're back to rhetoric vs reality. Being double-jabbed does not make you immune. Allowing Covid to run through our hospitals, transmitted via the medical staff would be fucking stupid.
No-one's saying people with covid should come into work.
Just that we should stop isolating the double-jabbed who come into contact with someone who tests positive once they have tested negative.
Ten days isolation for just coming into contact with a case is overkill.
Precisely.
Don't come into work if you have the flu, or vomitting or diarrhea is fairly standard. Covid needs to be like that.
Don't come into work because nine days ago you were in contact with someone who was vomitting, or had the flu or diarrhea even though you're not yourself is never how we operate. Not should it be with Covid anymore.
That isn't a trigger for isolation and you know it.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
It's absolutely rife. An absolute disaster zone at my kids' schools. I recently needed to borrow a cat basket to go to the vet (cats have grown and can no longer share) and realised literally everyone I know with a cat in my town has covid. Most of them - adults, anyway - jabbed.
But I don't think the response should be to delay reopening. It's spreading like wildfire, and indubitably remains a very nasty disease - but our understanding is that due to the extent of vaccination of vulnerable groups, the NHS is no longer at risk and therefore those of us who rely on its services are no longer at risk.
If the risks back in 2020 had been those now, we would not be imposing the sort of restrictions we are under at the moment. We might be advising the vulnerable to shield, advising that masks might be advisable on public transport - exactly what is being advised after next Monday.
We would not be saying anything so draconian as no more than 6 people in your house, or making it illegal not to wear masks in certain circumstances.
I have to question the "NHS is not at risk" line. Various hospitals are at absolute breaking point - a deadly combination of a spike in hospitalisations and staff having to self-isolate.
As an example. RVI in Newcastle has 9.5% of nurses self-isolating and thus not working. "The hospital is on its knees" from a senior Doctor there. Staff now being instructed to delete the track and trace app for fear that very quickly they won't have sufficient staff to be safe.
And this is before we unmask and unlock and prompt a huge surge.
The key to this is to stop isolating double jabbed staff. Let the test before work - if clear, in they come.
The problem is that we have growing examples of (a) double-jabbed getting sick with Covid and (b) double-jabbed can transmit Covid
We're back to rhetoric vs reality. Being double-jabbed does not make you immune. Allowing Covid to run through our hospitals, transmitted via the medical staff would be fucking stupid.
No-one's saying people with covid should come into work.
Just that we should stop isolating the double-jabbed who come into contact with someone who tests positive once they have tested negative.
Ten days isolation for just coming into contact with a case is overkill.
You miss the point. They may not be ill with Covid. They could be transmitting Covid. Which is why then need to self-isolate.
Suspect they will review the period needed for isolation but not remove it as some of you demand. The cluster fuck in hospitals is real, they have the data, and it can't just be talked or wished away.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
It's absolutely rife. An absolute disaster zone at my kids' schools. I recently needed to borrow a cat basket to go to the vet (cats have grown and can no longer share) and realised literally everyone I know with a cat in my town has covid. Most of them - adults, anyway - jabbed.
But I don't think the response should be to delay reopening. It's spreading like wildfire, and indubitably remains a very nasty disease - but our understanding is that due to the extent of vaccination of vulnerable groups, the NHS is no longer at risk and therefore those of us who rely on its services are no longer at risk.
If the risks back in 2020 had been those now, we would not be imposing the sort of restrictions we are under at the moment. We might be advising the vulnerable to shield, advising that masks might be advisable on public transport - exactly what is being advised after next Monday.
We would not be saying anything so draconian as no more than 6 people in your house, or making it illegal not to wear masks in certain circumstances.
I have to question the "NHS is not at risk" line. Various hospitals are at absolute breaking point - a deadly combination of a spike in hospitalisations and staff having to self-isolate.
As an example. RVI in Newcastle has 9.5% of nurses self-isolating and thus not working. "The hospital is on its knees" from a senior Doctor there. Staff now being instructed to delete the track and trace app for fear that very quickly they won't have sufficient staff to be safe.
And this is before we unmask and unlock and prompt a huge surge.
The key to this is to stop isolating double jabbed staff. Let the test before work - if clear, in they come.
The problem is that we have growing examples of (a) double-jabbed getting sick with Covid and (b) double-jabbed can transmit Covid
We're back to rhetoric vs reality. Being double-jabbed does not make you immune. Allowing Covid to run through our hospitals, transmitted via the medical staff would be fucking stupid.
No-one's saying people with covid should come into work.
Just that we should stop isolating the double-jabbed who come into contact with someone who tests positive once they have tested negative.
Ten days isolation for just coming into contact with a case is overkill.
Precisely.
Don't come into work if you have the flu, or vomitting or diarrhea is fairly standard. Covid needs to be like that.
Don't come into work because nine days ago you were in contact with someone who was vomitting, or had the flu or diarrhea even though you're not yourself is never how we operate. Not should it be with Covid anymore.
That isn't a trigger for isolation and you know it.
People aren't isolating because contacts are ill rather than they themselves are? Are you sure about that?
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
It's absolutely rife. An absolute disaster zone at my kids' schools. I recently needed to borrow a cat basket to go to the vet (cats have grown and can no longer share) and realised literally everyone I know with a cat in my town has covid. Most of them - adults, anyway - jabbed.
But I don't think the response should be to delay reopening. It's spreading like wildfire, and indubitably remains a very nasty disease - but our understanding is that due to the extent of vaccination of vulnerable groups, the NHS is no longer at risk and therefore those of us who rely on its services are no longer at risk.
If the risks back in 2020 had been those now, we would not be imposing the sort of restrictions we are under at the moment. We might be advising the vulnerable to shield, advising that masks might be advisable on public transport - exactly what is being advised after next Monday.
We would not be saying anything so draconian as no more than 6 people in your house, or making it illegal not to wear masks in certain circumstances.
I have to question the "NHS is not at risk" line. Various hospitals are at absolute breaking point - a deadly combination of a spike in hospitalisations and staff having to self-isolate.
As an example. RVI in Newcastle has 9.5% of nurses self-isolating and thus not working. "The hospital is on its knees" from a senior Doctor there. Staff now being instructed to delete the track and trace app for fear that very quickly they won't have sufficient staff to be safe.
And this is before we unmask and unlock and prompt a huge surge.
The key to this is to stop isolating double jabbed staff. Let the test before work - if clear, in they come.
The problem is that we have growing examples of (a) double-jabbed getting sick with Covid and (b) double-jabbed can transmit Covid
We're back to rhetoric vs reality. Being double-jabbed does not make you immune. Allowing Covid to run through our hospitals, transmitted via the medical staff would be fucking stupid.
No-one's saying people with covid should come into work.
Just that we should stop isolating the double-jabbed who come into contact with someone who tests positive once they have tested negative.
Ten days isolation for just coming into contact with a case is overkill.
You miss the point. They may not be ill with Covid. They could be transmitting Covid. Which is why then need to self-isolate.
Suspect they will review the period needed for isolation but not remove it as some of you demand. The cluster fuck in hospitals is real, they have the data, and it can't just be talked or wished away.
But if they've tested negative, they haven't got it and can't be transmitting it.
Fine, get pinged, day off, go and get a test, wait until the outcome. But once that's negative why keep them off for another nine days?
Father-in-law was described as a faddy eater; never ate meat, never ate potatoes other than as mash or chips and dozens of other things, including, notably, pasta. How he managed in the war, during his time in the RAF we don't know. We knew Alzheimers had really got him when we arrived in the Care Home one day to find him, in his late 70's, eating spaghetti on toast! No-one else in the family took after him except his eldest gt-grandson (whom he never knew) who as a child was incredibly awkward. His mother, our daughter tried everything but he just wouldn't. However, he improved when he went to Uni and had to cook for himself and now he's married he and his wife seem to eat totally normally
Our little 'un is a bit of a faddy eater - we have enough variety to give him a different meal each day of the week, but the menu is the same week after week. He does eat fruit though, which is a relief. It used to be a nightmare taking him anywhere, as he would only eat ham sandwiches.
Talking to other parents, he isn't as bad as some - one friend of his only eats chicken nuggets and potato waffles, and only drinks water. Not chips. Not pasta. Not salad. He seems fine on it. Other kids apparently eat anything put down in front of them.
Goodness knows what makes all the kids different.
I know; daughter used to be at her wits end with her son. From the time he was weaned, basically. Chicken nuggets and waffles sounds about right, but now at 30 he's nearly 6ft and as I say eats pretty well anything. His elder sister was fine.
Now I, on the other hand will try anything up to an including fried grasshoppers and witchetty grubs but can't eat ...... just can't ..... raw tomatoes.
Quite who made the decision to allow them to go clubbing in Cyprus like that...
The crew will become unmanageable without a run ashore (an RN tradition since early 18th C. since when standards of behaviour have not improved) particularly on a long peacetime cruise. The Captain can't just tell them all to stay in their bunks and have a wank when they could be in Limassol having a punch up and getting a dose.
Agree, however he should be able to point out that it is one of the most COVID-infectious countries in the world and hope they listen slightly.
Father-in-law was described as a faddy eater; never ate meat, never ate potatoes other than as mash or chips and dozens of other things, including, notably, pasta. How he managed in the war, during his time in the RAF we don't know. We knew Alzheimers had really got him when we arrived in the Care Home one day to find him, in his late 70's, eating spaghetti on toast! No-one else in the family took after him except his eldest gt-grandson (whom he never knew) who as a child was incredibly awkward. His mother, our daughter tried everything but he just wouldn't. However, he improved when he went to Uni and had to cook for himself and now he's married he and his wife seem to eat totally normally
Our little 'un is a bit of a faddy eater - we have enough variety to give him a different meal each day of the week, but the menu is the same week after week. He does eat fruit though, which is a relief. It used to be a nightmare taking him anywhere, as he would only eat ham sandwiches.
Talking to other parents, he isn't as bad as some - one friend of his only eats chicken nuggets and potato waffles, and only drinks water. Not chips. Not pasta. Not salad. He seems fine on it. Other kids apparently eat anything put down in front of them.
Goodness knows what makes all the kids different.
I think its just the modern world. During the war and post war period when food was short, were children faddy eaters then? They were served up their dinner and if they didn't eat it there was nothing else. Now there is always something else.
I think children have always been faddy eaters. I was in the 1950s. I eat everything now. Not sure when that changed. I suspect as a young teenager.
Quite who made the decision to allow them to go clubbing in Cyprus like that...
The crew will become unmanageable without a run ashore (an RN tradition since early 18th C. since when standards of behaviour have not improved) particularly on a long peacetime cruise. The Captain can't just tell them all to stay in their bunks and have a wank when they could be in Limassol having a punch up and getting a dose.
Agree, however he should be able to point out that it is one of the most COVID-infectious countries in the world and hope they listen slightly.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
Just lazy opinions you might expect from The Guardian opinion section. No willingness to read the intelligent approach from England supporter's group to the issue. It's the same as calling Danish or Italian players and fans racist because they didn't wish to take the knee or Wilfred Zaha and the majority of English club sides racist because they refused to do it. The knee has sucked the life out of a constructive debate about dealing with racism when the public should really be talking about the online safety bill and the relative pros and cons of it towards ending hatred. No wonder so many Brits think the parts of the left care more about gestures and culture wars than solutions.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
It's absolutely rife. An absolute disaster zone at my kids' schools. I recently needed to borrow a cat basket to go to the vet (cats have grown and can no longer share) and realised literally everyone I know with a cat in my town has covid. Most of them - adults, anyway - jabbed.
But I don't think the response should be to delay reopening. It's spreading like wildfire, and indubitably remains a very nasty disease - but our understanding is that due to the extent of vaccination of vulnerable groups, the NHS is no longer at risk and therefore those of us who rely on its services are no longer at risk.
If the risks back in 2020 had been those now, we would not be imposing the sort of restrictions we are under at the moment. We might be advising the vulnerable to shield, advising that masks might be advisable on public transport - exactly what is being advised after next Monday.
We would not be saying anything so draconian as no more than 6 people in your house, or making it illegal not to wear masks in certain circumstances.
I have to question the "NHS is not at risk" line. Various hospitals are at absolute breaking point - a deadly combination of a spike in hospitalisations and staff having to self-isolate.
As an example. RVI in Newcastle has 9.5% of nurses self-isolating and thus not working. "The hospital is on its knees" from a senior Doctor there. Staff now being instructed to delete the track and trace app for fear that very quickly they won't have sufficient staff to be safe.
And this is before we unmask and unlock and prompt a huge surge.
The key to this is to stop isolating double jabbed staff. Let the test before work - if clear, in they come.
The problem is that we have growing examples of (a) double-jabbed getting sick with Covid and (b) double-jabbed can transmit Covid
We're back to rhetoric vs reality. Being double-jabbed does not make you immune. Allowing Covid to run through our hospitals, transmitted via the medical staff would be fucking stupid.
No-one's saying people with covid should come into work.
Just that we should stop isolating the double-jabbed who come into contact with someone who tests positive once they have tested negative.
Ten days isolation for just coming into contact with a case is overkill.
You miss the point. They may not be ill with Covid. They could be transmitting Covid. Which is why then need to self-isolate.
Suspect they will review the period needed for isolation but not remove it as some of you demand. The cluster fuck in hospitals is real, they have the data, and it can't just be talked or wished away.
That someone who has no symptoms and is testing negative "could be transmitting Covid" isn't a good enough a reason to make people isolate anymore.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
Bullshit.
Give a citation please that the government wants that, given they've said the exact opposite. Rather than that you're deliberately misinterpreting what a proposed law to tackle evil people traffickers means.
The law as it was originally presented....
And you've proved the point yourself - if the desire was to tackle evil people traffickers the "for profit" motive within the current law would have been kept in place and not explicitly removed.
No. Tackling evil people traffickers should be able to be done by proving they trafficked people - even if the sums of money changing hands is murky and can't be proven.
Rescuing drowning people from the water is not that, and its a lie to say that is what people want prosecuting.
It's not a lie - it's a consequence of the law as it is now written.
That is the point you don't see - by using for profit it allowed all niche cases (including RNLI landing in a UK port) to be excluded, now they need to be explicitly defined and the legislation modified to ensure all such niche cases are covered.
Because all the Government wants to do is score right wing "virtue" points it doesn't bother to think why was that phrased this way.
And it wouldn't be so bad but this is a continual issue, you would have hoped after similar issues had been pointed out before that they wouldn't need to point them out again.
But they needed to provide proof that it was for profit.
It’s an American approach, but I think banning it and then providing safe harbours is a viable way forward provided those are defined correctly
Father-in-law was described as a faddy eater; never ate meat, never ate potatoes other than as mash or chips and dozens of other things, including, notably, pasta. How he managed in the war, during his time in the RAF we don't know. We knew Alzheimers had really got him when we arrived in the Care Home one day to find him, in his late 70's, eating spaghetti on toast! No-one else in the family took after him except his eldest gt-grandson (whom he never knew) who as a child was incredibly awkward. His mother, our daughter tried everything but he just wouldn't. However, he improved when he went to Uni and had to cook for himself and now he's married he and his wife seem to eat totally normally
Our little 'un is a bit of a faddy eater - we have enough variety to give him a different meal each day of the week, but the menu is the same week after week. He does eat fruit though, which is a relief. It used to be a nightmare taking him anywhere, as he would only eat ham sandwiches.
Talking to other parents, he isn't as bad as some - one friend of his only eats chicken nuggets and potato waffles, and only drinks water. Not chips. Not pasta. Not salad. He seems fine on it. Other kids apparently eat anything put down in front of them.
Goodness knows what makes all the kids different.
I think its just the modern world. During the war and post war period when food was short, were children faddy eaters then? They were served up their dinner and if they didn't eat it there was nothing else. Now there is always something else.
Father-in-law was born 1916. Spent 5 years in the RAF during the war. Came out as faddy as he went in, apparently. Used to do bomb disposal on American airfields in East Anglia and after a successful defusal the team would be taken into the mess and offered steak dinners. Never touched them; just ate the (vanilla) ice cream dessert.
I am also trying to lose weight. Have always been chunky, but last year took a horrible toll thanks to a combination of depression, comfort eating and Sertraline.
I need to lose about 20kg to get back to what I had as a stable weight back in 2017 or so. Enjoy exercise but left ankle / right knee unhappy at the moment. What I am doing is intermittent fasting. The odd 24 hour one, but most working days I have a small bowl of (healthy) cereal and then nothing until dinner.
Does seem to work, 4.5 off so far, though will need to see how it plays out longer term. If nothing else an end to incessant grazing during the day is a Good Thing, as is breaking my reliance on sweeteners in tea / coffee.
I'm at the stage with my running where I'm not losing any more weight, and whatever I eat just gets shed off. 18 miles yesterday in two morning runs; 1,369 miles run so far this year.
The thing is, I really want to shed another 5kg (I'm hovering on the border between normal and overweight), but I just cannot seem to do it...
To feed a family of four at McDonalds costs the better part of £20 nowadays.
To go to the Co-Op, or Aldi, or Tesco's and get some fresh veg and meat and prepare a fresh meal can be done considerably cheaper.
People are buying at McDonalds and others because its convenient, not because they can't afford to cook at home.
+1
People are going to McDonalds because they don't have time to cook at home. Both parents work all day and they don't have time to cook, it's quite simple.
This goes back to education again really, teach people how to cook meals quickly.
No it is because they are lazy barstewards, by the time they drive and sit in queues and drive home they could have cooked a meal.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
France is a failed state. Obviously.
So we need to do what we always do with failed states.....
Do they come under naval discipline for such things as mutiny, compulsory jabs, etc.?
Definitely not in peacetime. Quite what will happen in a shooting war is anyone's guess as we've never had an RN ship with this many civvies on it before. On Invincible we had none and on Ark Royal we had one who was a tailor from Hong Kong.
None of the county-operated hospitals in Los Angeles County have admitted a single COVID-19 patient who was fully vaccinated. "At this point this really is a preventable illness, a preventable infection," a county health official said, according to NBC LA
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
[Citation Needed] that the government are objecting to such amendments.
The RNLI are saying quite reasonably they shouldn't be caught by the law, and the government are quite reasonably saying they won't be, so if amendments are needed to clarify that then there's no sign they'll be opposed. It hasn't reached the time for amendments yet.
But that doesn't allow people to score political points, so instead we get nonsense like this debate.
Any sane government would just accept the need for an RNLI amendment and not have a public spat about it.
This government won't, either through incompetence, or to virtue signal to the hard right how tough they are on immigrants. Or a mix or both.
It has accepted the objective. Whether it’s an amendment or a statement is just process. This really is a storm whipped up by government opponents who are lying a d misrepresenting things
The reality is most of us are going to be getting covid at some point.
Right. Unfortunately the vast majority of people still don't seem to have grasped that "living with covid" doesn't mean for a few more months but forever.
Why?
My understanding is that vaccines + antibodies from previous infection > ability of virus to spread. And that the ability of the virus to mutate to evade the above is relatively limited (this is the crucial point - it is not like flu).
Therefore, virus will end.
What we are seeing now with Delta is a much more transmissabable variant, but not one which can evade the above forever.
Maybe many of us who are double jabbed will get covid. Maybe a few will get covid more than once. But eventually our antibodies will see it off.
Is there any reason this should not be the case?
I am not an expert, but I think alarm about rising cases - which were foreseen, indeed foreseen at greater numbers, and are certainly nothing to celebrate except in the very limited sense that every infection is a step towards herd immunity - is translating into expectation that virus will get out of the dead end it was going down.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
I suspect that the RNLI has plenty of supporters in high places who are able to pull enough strings to change this and/or explain privately in words that even Johnson can understand that this hasn't been thought through properly.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
I suspect that the RNLI has plenty of supporters in high places who are able to pull enough strings to change this and/or explain privately in words that even Johnson can understand that this hasn't been thought through properly.
Quite who made the decision to allow them to go clubbing in Cyprus like that...
The crew will become unmanageable without a run ashore (an RN tradition since early 18th C. since when standards of behaviour have not improved) particularly on a long peacetime cruise. The Captain can't just tell them all to stay in their bunks and have a wank when they could be in Limassol having a punch up and getting a dose.
Agree, however he should be able to point out that it is one of the most COVID-infectious countries in the world and hope they listen slightly.
After x months on board ship - zero chance...
It only left in late May :-), so x is about 1.5 so far.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
France is a failed state. Obviously.
So we need to do what we always do with failed states.....
Quite who made the decision to allow them to go clubbing in Cyprus like that...
The crew will become unmanageable without a run ashore (an RN tradition since early 18th C. since when standards of behaviour have not improved) particularly on a long peacetime cruise. The Captain can't just tell them all to stay in their bunks and have a wank when they could be in Limassol having a punch up and getting a dose.
Agree, however he should be able to point out that it is one of the most COVID-infectious countries in the world and hope they listen slightly.
Casn't stuff them with rum or threaten them with the lash any more these days. So what can one do?
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
France is a failed state. Obviously.
So we need to do what we always do with failed states.....
I am also trying to lose weight. Have always been chunky, but last year took a horrible toll thanks to a combination of depression, comfort eating and Sertraline.
I need to lose about 20kg to get back to what I had as a stable weight back in 2017 or so. Enjoy exercise but left ankle / right knee unhappy at the moment. What I am doing is intermittent fasting. The odd 24 hour one, but most working days I have a small bowl of (healthy) cereal and then nothing until dinner.
Does seem to work, 4.5 off so far, though will need to see how it plays out longer term. If nothing else an end to incessant grazing during the day is a Good Thing, as is breaking my reliance on sweeteners in tea / coffee.
I'm at the stage with my running where I'm not losing any more weight, and whatever I eat just gets shed off. 18 miles yesterday in two morning runs; 1,369 miles run so far this year.
The thing is, I really want to shed another 5kg (I'm hovering on the border between normal and overweight), but I just cannot seem to do it...
Try doing weights as well. I found that has helped. Dietary changes also definitely helped (I have a sweet tooth so have to resist that) and also alcohol is a killer for keeping weight on
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
France is a failed state. Obviously.
So we need to do what we always do with failed states.....
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
Quite who made the decision to allow them to go clubbing in Cyprus like that...
The crew will become unmanageable without a run ashore (an RN tradition since early 18th C. since when standards of behaviour have not improved) particularly on a long peacetime cruise. The Captain can't just tell them all to stay in their bunks and have a wank when they could be in Limassol having a punch up and getting a dose.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
France is a failed state. Obviously.
So we need to do what we always do with failed states.....
Do they have oil?
Olive oil. Sunflower oil. ...
They have a couple of places that produce oil, onshore.
New: As Cubans protest, government cracks down on internet access and messaging apps. WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram all blocked in the country, as well as some VPNs. https://t.co/lQcWbfPUYT
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
I can't say, but not all NGOs are legally charities these days. From memory War on Want isn't.
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Nigel Farage made great play recently of the fact that whilst out in the Channel he came across a dinghy with a couple of men in it. They were obviously in trouble so they took them aboard and brought them back to shore.
Would Farage now be facing potential life imprisonment?
I see we have yet another thread in which posters LARP as aliens recently arrived from a planet in which politicians are all pillars of integrity, and therefore display shock at Boris Johnson obviously lying and avoiding questions.
Might as well join in. I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
I find Starmer's style at PMQs odd. He goes all guns blazing on one subject and then has one question at the end on something that feels much more important (and he's the one making it feel that way with his tone).
If he wants to do this sort of thing, he should do two sets of three questions so that the change of tone doesn't grate.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Yes. It is interesting, asking people in the family, why the UK?
- A large chunk is English is spoken as the second language of even the moderately educated around the world. - A large chunk is that the UK is, interestingly seen as immigrant friendly. Don't laugh. France apparently has a pretty bad reputation... - Jobs. The perception is that France, Spain etc... jobs are reserved for the locals. - Immigrants who made it. The UK is perceived as being much more diverse than say, Germany. While we don't see it, the perception that tons of people in media, parliament etc are non-white/non-british-origin resonates. - Another chunk is films/media - UK appears pretty frequently.
Nigel Farage made great play recently of the fact that whilst out in the Channel he came across a dinghy with a couple of men in it. They were obviously in trouble so they took them aboard and brought them back to shore.
Would Farage now be facing potential life imprisonment?
Well, he was certainly making surte he had something to complain about.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
But generally they don't. We have much much fewer than most other countries presumably because we are further away and the channel gets in the way. Why do those who do try to get here try though is the question. I am guessing language, relations or people they know or know of are here already, etc. But let's not assume they are all making their way to our shores because they aren't.
The channel is a two edge sword if you want to keep people out. It works very well, but it does mean you have to save people who otherwise might drown. Bit like the Med on a smaller scale really.
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
I find Starmer's style at PMQs odd. He goes all guns blazing on one subject and then has one question at the end on something that feels much more important (and he's the one making it feel that way with his tone).
If he wants to do this sort of thing, he should do two sets of three questions so that the change of tone doesn't grate.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Then they can apply for a visa.
But visa applications for "distant family" are not easy so they might be rejected.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
I can't say, but not all NGOs are legally charities these days. From memory War on Want isn't.
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
Oxfam etc are charities and they've been very vocal earlier this week.
As for the RNLI choosing to be careful, that's a choice if so and not a ban.
Seems clear that its not the RNLI speaking about this, its people trying to abuse their name to invent a stick to hit the government with.
I find Starmer's style at PMQs odd. He goes all guns blazing on one subject and then has one question at the end on something that feels much more important (and he's the one making it feel that way with his tone).
If he wants to do this sort of thing, he should do two sets of three questions so that the change of tone doesn't grate.
It's to prevent the PMs pre-scripted peroration.
The PM got that in after question five today.
And actually, Boris was fairly confident with his answer to the Northern Ireland question. Blair gave an amnesty to terrorists in 1998. It was the price of peace. And as horrible as it must be for the families of the victims, we really do need to move on.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
I can't say, but not all NGOs are legally charities these days. From memory War on Want isn't.
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
Oxfam etc are charities and they've been very vocal earlier this week.
As for the RNLI choosing to be careful, that's a choice if so and not a ban.
Seems clear that its not the RNLI speaking about this, its people trying to abuse their name to invent a stick to hit the government with.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Yes. It is interesting, asking people in the family, why the UK?
- A large chunk is English is spoken as the second language of even the moderately educated around the world. - A large chunk is that the UK is, interestingly seen as immigrant friendly. Don't laugh. France apparently has a pretty bad reputation... - Jobs. The perception is that France, Spain etc... jobs are reserved for the locals. - Immigrants who made it. The UK is perceived as being much more diverse than say, Germany. While we don't see it, the perception that tons of people in media, parliament etc are non-white/non-british-origin resonates. - Another chunk is films/media - UK appears pretty frequently.
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
Must say I went just before pandemic because I had 20 minutes before an appointment, was starving and it was there. Was not quick. Took over 15 minutes, was not tasty, and was not cheap. Fail to see the attraction. Coffee is good though. Better than the coffee chains.
Do they come under naval discipline for such things as mutiny, compulsory jabs, etc.?
Definitely not in peacetime. Quite what will happen in a shooting war is anyone's guess as we've never had an RN ship with this many civvies on it before. On Invincible we had none and on Ark Royal we had one who was a tailor from Hong Kong.
They did have dockyard maties on PoW (the previous one) who must have had a bad fright when they had a run in with Bismark. But proibably not nearly so many, plus it was a panic move when finishing off PoW and no intention for a World Tour there. (They were better off out of it when that did happen ...)
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
I can't say, but not all NGOs are legally charities these days. From memory War on Want isn't.
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
Oxfam etc are charities and they've been very vocal earlier this week.
As for the RNLI choosing to be careful, that's a choice if so and not a ban.
Seems clear that its not the RNLI speaking about this, its people trying to abuse their name to invent a stick to hit the government with.
"We are a life-saving charity and, under maritime law and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (Solas), our volunteer lifeboat crews will always go to the aid of those in danger at sea"
Yes, I respect what they have to say. Don't you?
There's not a single objection there from the RNLI, instead the critical quotes come from serial critics of the government like George Peretz QC.
What critical quote from the RNLI do you have? Any or none?
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Yes. It is interesting, asking people in the family, why the UK?
- A large chunk is English is spoken as the second language of even the moderately educated around the world. - A large chunk is that the UK is, interestingly seen as immigrant friendly. Don't laugh. France apparently has a pretty bad reputation... - Jobs. The perception is that France, Spain etc... jobs are reserved for the locals. - Immigrants who made it. The UK is perceived as being much more diverse than say, Germany. While we don't see it, the perception that tons of people in media, parliament etc are non-white/non-british-origin resonates. - Another chunk is films/media - UK appears pretty frequently.
Asylum seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country."
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
I can't say, but not all NGOs are legally charities these days. From memory War on Want isn't.
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
Oxfam etc are charities and they've been very vocal earlier this week.
As for the RNLI choosing to be careful, that's a choice if so and not a ban.
Seems clear that its not the RNLI speaking about this, its people trying to abuse their name to invent a stick to hit the government with.
"We are a life-saving charity and, under maritime law and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (Solas), our volunteer lifeboat crews will always go to the aid of those in danger at sea"
Yes, I respect what they have to say. Don't you?
There's not a single objection there from the RNLI, instead the critical quotes come from serial critics of the government like George Peretz QC.
What critical quote from the RNLI do you have? Any or none?
Did you read the preceding text? Context is all #
"The UK’s leading maritime rescue charity has vowed to keep saving anyone in peril at sea despite provisions in draft legislation that barristers say could threaten volunteers with life imprisonment for picking up asylum seekers.
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution made the statement after immigration barristers warned that Clause 38 of the nationality and borders bill, published on Tuesday, potentially criminalised rescues of asylum seekers if they were deemed to constitute “facilitating” their arrival in the UK."
That is as close to direct opposition to gmt policy as one can gert without saying it out front. I suspect the journo was being careful.
Do they come under naval discipline for such things as mutiny, compulsory jabs, etc.?
Definitely not in peacetime. Quite what will happen in a shooting war is anyone's guess as we've never had an RN ship with this many civvies on it before. On Invincible we had none and on Ark Royal we had one who was a tailor from Hong Kong.
They did have dockyard maties on PoW (the previous one) who must have had a bad fright when they had a run in with Bismark. But proibably not nearly so many, plus it was a panic move when finishing off PoW and no intention for a World Tour there. (They were better off out of it when that did happen ...)
During the Falklands war, I seem to recall that a bunch of laundry staff from Hong Kong were on some of the ships hit and became casualties?
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
Do they come under naval discipline for such things as mutiny, compulsory jabs, etc.?
Definitely not in peacetime. Quite what will happen in a shooting war is anyone's guess as we've never had an RN ship with this many civvies on it before. On Invincible we had none and on Ark Royal we had one who was a tailor from Hong Kong.
They did have dockyard maties on PoW (the previous one) who must have had a bad fright when they had a run in with Bismark. But proibably not nearly so many, plus it was a panic move when finishing off PoW and no intention for a World Tour there. (They were better off out of it when that did happen ...)
During the Falklands war, I seem to recall that a bunch of laundry staff from Hong Kong were on some of the ships hit and became casualties?
Oh yes, and did not a NAAFI canteen manager end up firing the AA MGs at the Argies?
But those are very small contingents in support toles in proportion to the - what was it? 25% or something that we are hearing about today.
[Edit: Chinese laundrymen and NAAFI managhers were routine civvies on RN after the war IIRC.)
Comments
The crew will become unmanageable without a run ashore (an RN tradition since early 18th C. since when standards of behaviour have not improved) particularly on a long peacetime cruise. The Captain can't just tell them all to stay in their bunks and have a wank when they could be in Limassol having a punch up and getting a dose.
But yesterday evening we ordered fish and chips (from Newhaven Fishmarket) to be delivered by deliveroo, because we were both too knackered to make chickpea and coriander burgers with stuff to accompany.
As much as anything we were tired of thinking. I spent too long arguing on here most likely.
On topic: You'd think if there was anything Starmer might be genuinely passionate about, given his background, it would be the rule of law, and preserving our freedoms under it.
Where is the leader who will lead the opposition to the government's authoritarianism?
I am not suggesting we all go nuts. But people reporting i know somebody, they got it despite being jabbed....well no shit sherlock. Vaccine effectiveness of 60-80% from catching it, nobody claimed you just got an invincibility shield.
Bur, we don't breathlessly report every person we know who has every other disease under the sun.
The reality is most of us are going to be getting covid at some point.
--AS
I need to lose about 20kg to get back to what I had as a stable weight back in 2017 or so. Enjoy exercise but left ankle / right knee unhappy at the moment. What I am doing is intermittent fasting. The odd 24 hour one, but most working days I have a small bowl of (healthy) cereal and then nothing until dinner.
Does seem to work, 4.5 off so far, though will need to see how it plays out longer term. If nothing else an end to incessant grazing during the day is a Good Thing, as is breaking my reliance on sweeteners in tea / coffee.
Talking to other parents, he isn't as bad as some - one friend of his only eats chicken nuggets and potato waffles, and only drinks water. Not chips. Not pasta. Not salad. He seems fine on it. Other kids apparently eat anything put down in front of them.
Goodness knows what makes all the kids different.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
Just that we should stop isolating the double-jabbed who come into contact with someone who tests positive once they have tested negative.
Ten days isolation for just coming into contact with a case is overkill.
The thing is, I really want to shed another 5kg (I'm hovering on the border between normal and overweight), but I just cannot seem to do it...
Don't come into work if you have the flu, or vomitting or diarrhea is fairly standard. Covid needs to be like that.
Don't come into work because nine days ago you were in contact with someone who was vomitting, or had the flu or diarrhea even though you're not yourself is never how we operate. Not should it be with Covid anymore.
I think that the government will need more than a nudge unit to get people to revert back to status quo ante.
Suspect they will review the period needed for isolation but not remove it as some of you demand. The cluster fuck in hospitals is real, they have the data, and it can't just be talked or wished away.
Fine, get pinged, day off, go and get a test, wait until the outcome. But once that's negative why keep them off for another nine days?
Now I, on the other hand will try anything up to an including fried grasshoppers and witchetty grubs but can't eat ...... just can't ..... raw tomatoes.
It’s an American approach, but I think banning it and then providing safe harbours is a viable way forward provided those are defined correctly
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
So we need to do what we always do with failed states.....
None of the county-operated hospitals in Los Angeles County have admitted a single COVID-19 patient who was fully vaccinated. "At this point this really is a preventable illness, a preventable infection," a county health official said, according to NBC LA
My understanding is that vaccines + antibodies from previous infection > ability of virus to spread.
And that the ability of the virus to mutate to evade the above is relatively limited (this is the crucial point - it is not like flu).
Therefore, virus will end.
What we are seeing now with Delta is a much more transmissabable variant, but not one which can evade the above forever.
Maybe many of us who are double jabbed will get covid. Maybe a few will get covid more than once. But eventually our antibodies will see it off.
Is there any reason this should not be the case?
I am not an expert, but I think alarm about rising cases - which were foreseen, indeed foreseen at greater numbers, and are certainly nothing to celebrate except in the very limited sense that every infection is a step towards herd immunity - is translating into expectation that virus will get out of the dead end it was going down.
https://twitter.com/mikeschussler/status/1414931992379019265?s=19
https://twitter.com/mikeschussler/status/1414945094617161736?s=19
Thank you
Sunflower oil. ...
Vinum oleumque...
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1415202893855141888
CON: 43% (+2) LAB: 32% (-3)
@Survation
,
CON: 42% (-) LAB: 30% (-1)
@YouGov
,
#StealTheirOil
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
Would Farage now be facing potential life imprisonment?
Might as well join in. I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
If he wants to do this sort of thing, he should do two sets of three questions so that the change of tone doesn't grate.
- A large chunk is English is spoken as the second language of even the moderately educated around the world.
- A large chunk is that the UK is, interestingly seen as immigrant friendly. Don't laugh. France apparently has a pretty bad reputation...
- Jobs. The perception is that France, Spain etc... jobs are reserved for the locals.
- Immigrants who made it. The UK is perceived as being much more diverse than say, Germany. While we don't see it, the perception that tons of people in media, parliament etc are non-white/non-british-origin resonates.
- Another chunk is films/media - UK appears pretty frequently.
The channel is a two edge sword if you want to keep people out. It works very well, but it does mean you have to save people who otherwise might drown. Bit like the Med on a smaller scale really.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
But visa applications for "distant family" are not easy so they might be rejected.
As for the RNLI choosing to be careful, that's a choice if so and not a ban.
Seems clear that its not the RNLI speaking about this, its people trying to abuse their name to invent a stick to hit the government with.
And actually, Boris was fairly confident with his answer to the Northern Ireland question. Blair gave an amnesty to terrorists in 1998. It was the price of peace. And as horrible as it must be for the families of the victims, we really do need to move on.
Seems clear that it is speaking:
https://www.ft.com/content/1c1ac60f-b4c9-4c9f-b0a0-1e9201aebca2
Was not quick. Took over 15 minutes, was not tasty, and was not cheap.
Fail to see the attraction.
Coffee is good though. Better than the coffee chains.
Yes, I respect what they have to say. Don't you?
There's not a single objection there from the RNLI, instead the critical quotes come from serial critics of the government like George Peretz QC.
What critical quote from the RNLI do you have? Any or none?
Non-asylum seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK."
#
"The UK’s leading maritime rescue charity has vowed to keep saving anyone in peril at sea despite provisions in draft legislation that barristers say could threaten volunteers with life imprisonment for picking up asylum seekers.
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution made the statement after immigration barristers warned that Clause 38 of the nationality and borders bill, published on Tuesday, potentially criminalised rescues of asylum seekers if they were deemed to constitute “facilitating” their arrival in the UK."
That is as close to direct opposition to gmt policy as one can gert without saying it out front. I suspect the journo was being careful.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
But those are very small contingents in support toles in proportion to the - what was it? 25% or something that we are hearing about today.
[Edit: Chinese laundrymen and NAAFI managhers were routine civvies on RN after the war IIRC.)