Howdy, Stranger!

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

Could Johnson be planning to sack Sunak? – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    Foxy said:

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    I wonder if our plastic patriot PB Wokefinder Generals who were rubbishing Team GB two short weeks ago have changed their minds yet,?
    On the evidence of the trajectory of opinion during the progress of the kneeling England football team..
    No chance of a last minute slip up to get the racists for white penalty taking all worked up neither.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,466

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,696
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    All of which makes me think that you reject the core teachings of Christ. It’s the politics that attract you.
    All Christians by definition accept the teachings of Christ, even Muslims see Christ as a prophet, if I didn't I would be Jewish or atheist.

    However the Catholics and high church Anglicans tend to emphasise the importance of weekly holy communion with liturgy and that Christ is present in the Eucharist and believe bishops hold the fullness of the sacrimant of holy orders and are responsible for teaching doctrine and leadership. Plus Catholics believe the Pope is the direct successor of St Peter.

    Evangelicals however tend to be less keen on bishops and also tend to place less emphasis on holy communion, often not even having weekly Eucharist, instead being more bible based focusing on sermons and worship songs. Evangelicals only believe in Christ's spiritual presence in the Eucharist unlike Catholics and Anglo Catholic Anglicans who believe in Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist.

    So there is a doctrinal difference too
    Is your mother Jewish?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    Exactly. Hence HYUFD's utter reluctance to allow Reformed Christians into his hypothetical House of Lords.
  • CandyCandy Posts: 51
    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,466

    Foxy said:

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    Commonwealth Games in Brum next year!
    Still possible to volunteer:

    https://www.birmingham2022.com/get-involved/volunteering/
    Go for it, though if it is anything like the London Olympics, mightily bored you will be. Lots of standing about because most people can follow the signs by themselves.
    I have volunteered for the medical team.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    edited August 2021

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    Most DUP are Presbyterian anyway. Anglicans and Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland tend to be UUP or Alliance.

    Most of the DUP voters ancestors were Scots, most of the Church of Ireland voters in NI's ancestors were English
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150

    On Christian decision-making, there's a certain amount to be said for the groups at both edges ; the most decentralised, and in a certain way radically democratic Protestants, like the Quakers, on the one hand, and the traditionally quite educated Patriarch of all the Orthodox Church in Constantinople on the other, who at the moment is the kind of enlightened dictator Plato would have loved - the civilised Greek environmentalist Patriarch Bartholomew.

    Pope Francis may be just as civilised, but he's stuck in all sorts of moral and bureaucratic complexities and compromises compared, as is a lot of the Anglican church.

    I have a very soft spot for the Society of Friends. Asking difficult questions when they needed to be asked.

    Mrs C and I have been to Scarborough Castle and seen where George Fox was imprisoned: a ruined cell, with bee orchids in the grass outside.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    Most DUP are Presbyterian anyway. Anglicans and Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland tend to be UUP or Alliance.

    Most of the DUP voters ancestors were Scots, most of the Church of Ireland voters in NI's ancestors were English
    All my Scots ancestors were pagans, and the later ones, thanks to St Columba, were also more likely to be Christians before your presumed ones were. Which proves absolutely nothing, unless one is fixated on what happened 500 years ago, such as the vital need for a C of E to sort out Henry VIII's sex life and be frozen in aspic for ever.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,286
    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    Trafalgar or Gypsy Rose Lee?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,443
    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    Commonwealth Games in Brum next year!
    Still possible to volunteer:

    https://www.birmingham2022.com/get-involved/volunteering/
    Go for it, though if it is anything like the London Olympics, mightily bored you will be. Lots of standing about because most people can follow the signs by themselves.
    I have volunteered for the medical team.
    Makes sense. Presumably working with the St John/Red Cross volunteers looking after the crowds, or are they sending you on a weeks' sports medicine course so you can work with the athletes?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    edited August 2021
    felix said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
    Just wait till HYUFD becomes a candidate for Westminster. He's been warned by me (a pro-in dy Scot), Charles (whom we all know) and everyone in between, [edit] of the risk he is running in his comments here.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,334
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Napoleon. Not a historian but dimly recall an Antiques Roadshow expert saying Napoleon, despite being our enemy, was actually quite popular here, as witnessed by contemporary memorabilia.

    I'm just wondering how far he was (ultimately) responsible for the grinding halt to political progress in the UK from about 1790 onwards - and the counterreaction against progressives and radicals. It would not have been safe to have such stuff at certain times. I wonder how 'contemporary' was contemporary?

    Though I imagine this po-pot was pretty safe to have in the commode:

    https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/chamber-pot-with-napoleons-head/

    To some extent. They made Pitt’s proposed constitutional reforms more or less impossible.

    On the other hand, the revolutionary wars were eventually used to justify the abolition of slavery under Grenville in 1807.
    It was the slave trade rather than slavery itself that was abolished in 1807 surely? And in large part because of the successful revolution in Haiti. Suddenly slavery didn't appear such a great idea...

    Yes, sorry, typing error. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1830-37.

    The ideas though are not what I was talking about. The means used to abolish the slave trade was by declaring slaves to be war contraband and giving the Royal Navy the power to search neutral ships and seize any war contraband destined for France. Then, having kneecapped around a third of the slave trade, it was much easier to argue for getting rid of the rest.

    Extraordinarily clever, but would hardly have worked except in time of war.
    Let's not forget that France abolished slavery (not just the trade), outright and everywhere, in 1794, and good for them. Sadly NB unabolished it eight years later, but still. I do get impatient with people who think that Great Britain won the war on slavery just as it won WW2.
    AIUI Napoleon (him again!) repealed it a few years later, allowing slavery in various parts of the French empire. It wasn't fully abolished in France for another fifty years.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    That the far right are in the ascendancy in England is hardly news.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
    Just wait till HYUFD becomes a candidate for Westminster. He's been warned by me (a pro-in dy Scot), Charles (whom we all know) and everyone in between, [edit] of the risk he is running in his comments here.

    Profoundly unlikely. We have the screenshots. As do half of Fleet Street.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,575

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    Commonwealth Games in Brum next year!
    I can't see the EU topping the medals table in that one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    Except Bach was a Lutheran.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    edited August 2021
    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
    Just wait till HYUFD becomes a candidate for Westminster. He's been warned by me (a pro-in dy Scot), Charles (whom we all know) and everyone in between, [edit] of the risk he is running in his comments here.

    No risk at all, most things I say would be fully supported by most current Tory members and Tory voters, some even more vehemently.

    Not that I may ever stand for Westminster anyway
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 7,153

    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    That the far right are in the ascendancy in England is hardly news.
    You really are a deeply unpleasant individual.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,517

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    Commonwealth Games in Brum next year!
    I can't see the EU topping the medals table in that one.
    At least everyone can wave their own flags too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,830
    edited August 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    I can see them getting the ban hammer from the likes of YouTube if they continue to allow Neil Oliver to keep doing his antivaxxer monologues.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,466

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    Commonwealth Games in Brum next year!
    Still possible to volunteer:

    https://www.birmingham2022.com/get-involved/volunteering/
    Go for it, though if it is anything like the London Olympics, mightily bored you will be. Lots of standing about because most people can follow the signs by themselves.
    I have volunteered for the medical team.
    Makes sense. Presumably working with the St John/Red Cross volunteers looking after the crowds, or are they sending you on a weeks' sports medicine course so you can work with the athletes?
    The athletes get proper sports medicine. I will just be looking after sunburn, but hopefully get to see bits of the sports.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,236

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
    Just wait till HYUFD becomes a candidate for Westminster. He's been warned by me (a pro-in dy Scot), Charles (whom we all know) and everyone in between, [edit] of the risk he is running in his comments here.

    Profoundly unlikely. We have the screenshots. As do half of Fleet Street.
    Is 'half of Fleet Street really hanging off everyone word of a parish Councillor from Essex?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    Commonwealth Games in Brum next year!
    I can't see the EU topping the medals table in that one.
    Not unless the Maltese get on a really hot streak.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,399

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    Commonwealth Games in Brum next year!
    I can't see the EU topping the medals table in that one.
    Cyprus and Malta will have to go some tbf
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,575
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,399

    Foxy said:

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    I wonder if our plastic patriot PB Wokefinder Generals who were rubbishing Team GB two short weeks ago have changed their minds yet,?
    On the evidence of the trajectory of opinion during the progress of the kneeling England football team..
    No chance of a last minute slip up to get the racists for white penalty taking all worked up neither.
    que?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    One might wonder, what do you expect of a sect which was established to sort out its founder's sex life? But yes, you'd think they had moved on from that by now. The contrast with other denominations is quite striking.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    Hardly, if that was the case there would be no C of E women priests as is still the case with the Catholic church and no gay clergy either (there are openly gay C of E clergy now with same sex partners, though technically they should be celibate nobody checks)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    That is something to ponder. What are the great Protestant works of art (ie innately Protestant rather than made by Protestants)? King James Bible, Paradise Lost? I believe Cranach and Holbein tried to make paintings for Protestant churches but it didn't last long.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    edited August 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    As I rarely go on twitter I never see this nor do I really care. If there is anything really noteworthy, it will be posted on here. Hence no need for Twitter to be wasting my time.

    If there is a thread devoted to slagging off
    Gordon Brown, I might be persuaded/ shown how to assist.
  • CandyCandy Posts: 51
    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,049

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Napoleon. Not a historian but dimly recall an Antiques Roadshow expert saying Napoleon, despite being our enemy, was actually quite popular here, as witnessed by contemporary memorabilia.

    I'm just wondering how far he was (ultimately) responsible for the grinding halt to political progress in the UK from about 1790 onwards - and the counterreaction against progressives and radicals. It would not have been safe to have such stuff at certain times. I wonder how 'contemporary' was contemporary?

    Though I imagine this po-pot was pretty safe to have in the commode:

    https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/chamber-pot-with-napoleons-head/

    To some extent. They made Pitt’s proposed constitutional reforms more or less impossible.

    On the other hand, the revolutionary wars were eventually used to justify the abolition of slavery under Grenville in 1807.
    It was the slave trade rather than slavery itself that was abolished in 1807 surely? And in large part because of the successful revolution in Haiti. Suddenly slavery didn't appear such a great idea...

    Yes, sorry, typing error. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1830-37.

    The ideas though are not what I was talking about. The means used to abolish the slave trade was by declaring slaves to be war contraband and giving the Royal Navy the power to search neutral ships and seize any war contraband destined for France. Then, having kneecapped around a third of the slave trade, it was much easier to argue for getting rid of the rest.

    Extraordinarily clever, but would hardly have worked except in time of war.
    Let's not forget that France abolished slavery (not just the trade), outright and everywhere, in 1794, and good for them. Sadly NB unabolished it eight years later, but still. I do get impatient with people who think that Great Britain won the war on slavery just as it won WW2.
    AIUI Napoleon (him again!) repealed it a few years later, allowing slavery in various parts of the French empire. It wasn't fully abolished in France for another fifty years.
    That's what "NB unabolished it" was meant to mean. Not my most lucid moment.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,399
    edited August 2021
    In the last week been to two stunning places I have never visited before - Brighton Pavilion and Arundel Castle.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    DougSeal said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    That the far right are in the ascendancy in England is hardly news.
    You really are a deeply unpleasant individual.
    A bit harsh.. seriously misguided maybe..
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    edited August 2021
    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209
    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    Not sure it says much about allegiance, just that the are a sensible folk not easily swayed by the ramblings of Macron et al.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    One might wonder, what do you expect of a sect which was established to sort out its founder's sex life? But yes, you'd think they had moved on from that by now. The contrast with other denominations is quite striking.
    The Presbyterian Church of America does not ordain women unlike the C of E's sister church, The Episcopal Church
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_denominations#:~:text=The Presbyterian Church in America,The Cumberland Presbyterian Church.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Boris Johnson ‘nearly swept out to sea during Scottish holiday’

    PM came close to ‘catastrophe’ off north-west coast last year, according to report

    The prime minister is said to have told friends he would go back for a holiday “over my dead body”.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-scotland-holiday-sea-b1898730.html?amp

    Poor old Govey.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    That is something to ponder. What are the great Protestant works of art (ie innately Protestant rather than made by Protestants)? King James Bible, Paradise Lost? I believe Cranach and Holbein tried to make paintings for Protestant churches but it didn't last long.
    The Union.

    Ugly as sin.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    You're the lad that thought no great art was produced in post revolution Russia?
    Who knows, maybe this is a subject about which you have a scooby.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,575
    HYUFD said:



    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    Hardly, if that was the case there would be no C of E women priests as is still the case with the Catholic church and no gay clergy either (there are openly gay C of E clergy now with same sex partners, though technically they should be celibate nobody checks)
    Can I offer my services to check on the lesbian clergy?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
    Just wait till HYUFD becomes a candidate for Westminster. He's been warned by me (a pro-in dy Scot), Charles (whom we all know) and everyone in between, [edit] of the risk he is running in his comments here.

    Profoundly unlikely. We have the screenshots. As do half of Fleet Street.
    Is 'half of Fleet Street really hanging off everyone word of a parish Councillor from Essex?
    They will be when they get the screenshots the other half have.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027

    Boris Johnson ‘nearly swept out to sea during Scottish holiday’

    PM came close to ‘catastrophe’ off north-west coast last year, according to report

    The prime minister is said to have told friends he would go back for a holiday “over my dead body”.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-scotland-holiday-sea-b1898730.html?amp

    Poor old Govey.

    Where's Ahab when you need him?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,195
    Foxy said:

    I will just be looking after sunburn,

    ...in Birmingham...

    You'll be lucky
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,466
    edited August 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    Isn't it because of your own timeline, being tailored to your interests? It doesn't on mine, though there are several trending hashtags on mine to do with the football.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,268
    RobD said:

    Not sure it says much about allegiance, just that the are a sensible folk not easily swayed by the ramblings of Macron et al.

    You would have to be a particularly deranged nationalist to let it influence your views about medicine. I suspect most people simply thought that they would have any approved vaccine ASAP.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,830
    edited August 2021
    Foxy said:

    OT last day of the Olympics tomorrow. More British medal chances in cycling and Lauren Price is favourite to win her boxing gold.

    The Paralympics is at the end of August into September, and (as I'd forgotten) next year's Winter Olympics is in Beijing – less than six months away! Then to Paris 2024.

    I wonder if our plastic patriot PB Wokefinder Generals who were rubbishing Team GB two short weeks ago have changed their minds yet,?
    Not everybody is happy with the changes so far and of course the big realignment comes after this funding cycle.

    Team GB’s sevens programme 'a joke', says stand-in skipper after missing out on Tokyo medal

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2021/07/28/rugby-sevens-live-tokyo-olympics-2020-great-britain-bronze-final/

    At least 2 of the best 7s players weren't involved for Team GB because of this. I suspect that was an easy medal lost. Where as that money will be going on things like basketball, which Team GB will be lucky to even qualify for the Olympics, and certainly 0% chance of a medal...and the money will all go on insurance premiums for an NBA ringer or two.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    edited August 2021

    HYUFD said:



    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    Hardly, if that was the case there would be no C of E women priests as is still the case with the Catholic church and no gay clergy either (there are openly gay C of E clergy now with same sex partners, though technically they should be celibate nobody checks)
    Can I offer my services to check on the lesbian clergy?

    HYUFD said:



    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    Hardly, if that was the case there would be no C of E women priests as is still the case with the Catholic church and no gay clergy either (there are openly gay C of E clergy now with same sex partners, though technically they should be celibate nobody checks)
    Can I offer my services to check on the lesbian clergy?
    The realité is very different to that as portrayed on pornhub......
  • CandyCandy Posts: 51
    edited August 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    That is something to ponder. What are the great Protestant works of art (ie innately Protestant rather than made by Protestants)? King James Bible, Paradise Lost? I believe Cranach and Holbein tried to make paintings for Protestant churches but it didn't last long.
    Why should there be great works of art in Reformed churches (Ieaving out the Anglican Church as neither flesh nor fowl)?

    Part of the point of the Reformed Kirk in Scotland was not to have idols (in the broad sense) in the first place, never mind how artistic. And music didn't come into the Kirk till the mid-C19 and that only in a few kirks IIRC - even then maybe I am thinking of the Congregationalists here?

    It's a bit like complaining that vegans don't have a decent steak barbecue cuisine.

    Actually, this rings a bell of an exhibition at the National Museum some years ago about Kirk silver - the communion cups and plates. But apart from that, I think (unless one looks at psalmody) one would need to look at literature to get the nearest thing. Which would be sufficiently distant that the quest might be futile. The National Galleries did do a very nice exhibition of artists and the Kirk but again that was more narrative art about the kirk then in the kirk (the Cottar's Saturday Night Prayer and so on).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939
    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    I will just be looking after sunburn,

    ...in Birmingham...

    You'll be lucky
    Windburn?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    We didn't get the choice, so you're trying to out-HYUFD with the possibilities.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    HYUFD said:



    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    Hardly, if that was the case there would be no C of E women priests as is still the case with the Catholic church and no gay clergy either (there are openly gay C of E clergy now with same sex partners, though technically they should be celibate nobody checks)
    Can I offer my services to check on the lesbian clergy?

    HYUFD said:



    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    Hardly, if that was the case there would be no C of E women priests as is still the case with the Catholic church and no gay clergy either (there are openly gay C of E clergy now with same sex partners, though technically they should be celibate nobody checks)
    Can I offer my services to check on the lesbian clergy?
    The realité is very different to that as portrayed on pornhub......
    Really? How do you know?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650
    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209
    edited August 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    We didn't get the choice, so you're trying to out-HYUFD with the possibilities.
    Pedant mode, but there is a choice. You can choose not to get it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    The C of E seem to be more fixated on the clergy's genitals, and what they do with them and with whom, than with anything theological.
    One might wonder, what do you expect of a sect which was established to sort out its founder's sex life? But yes, you'd think they had moved on from that by now. The contrast with other denominations is quite striking.
    The Presbyterian Church of America does not ordain women unlike the C of E's sister church, The Episcopal Church
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_denominations#:~:text=The Presbyterian Church in America,The Cumberland Presbyterian Church.
    Relevance?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,049
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    Except Bach was a Lutheran.
    GPWM.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    We didn't get the choice, so you're trying to out-HYUFD with the possibilities.
    Pedant mode, but there is a choice. You can choose not to get it.
    Now that really would be insane, given that the vaccines offered (more correctly, allocated without choice) were decent options.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,451
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    I agree. Democracy makes all the difference, which is why Protestant ritual is dreadfully dull. Who would pay money to attend a concert of Hymns Ancient and Modern? Traditional Catholic ritual on the other hand is designed to make the congregation feel tiny and insignificant, which imho is the appropriate response when confronted by the magnitude of creation.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    Also: there is going to be far more trust in, say, a committee of medics and scientists - inherently cosmopolitan - than in the London government. I don't have any problem with NICE in the current circumstances, for instance.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209
    edited August 2021
    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    We didn't get the choice, so you're trying to out-HYUFD with the possibilities.
    Pedant mode, but there is a choice. You can choose not to get it.
    Now that really would be insane, given that the vaccines offered (more correctly, allocated without choice) were decent options.
    Hence pedant mode, but actually what some in Europe were doing when offered AZN.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,399
    edited August 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    Related to the same theme the two docs series BBC and Sky did on British Cycling are well worth a watch - I think at least one is on youtube (road to Glory)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313

    Boris Johnson ‘nearly swept out to sea during Scottish holiday’

    PM came close to ‘catastrophe’ off north-west coast last year, according to report

    The prime minister is said to have told friends he would go back for a holiday “over my dead body”.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-scotland-holiday-sea-b1898730.html?amp

    Poor old Govey.

    Where's Ahab when you need him?
    If Ahab does turn up he certainly has a huge, white pimply target.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,248

    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
    Just wait till HYUFD becomes a candidate for Westminster. He's been warned by me (a pro-in dy Scot), Charles (whom we all know) and everyone in between, [edit] of the risk he is running in his comments here.

    Profoundly unlikely. We have the screenshots. As do half of Fleet Street.
    Is 'half of Fleet Street really hanging off everyone word of a parish Councillor from Essex?
    They will be when they get the screenshots the other half have.
    Don't think so. Whatever HYUFD's reputation on here, about the most "outrageous" thing that anyone could unearth would be around his somewhat idiosyncratic views on how quickly the UK govt would be to deploy the armed forces (including nuclear weapons) in defence of Gibraltar or to suppress unilateral rebellion in Scotland.

    There are any number of Tory MPs out there where the main question is in determining the extent to which their public statements are an indication of mere ignorance or insanity. HYUFD doesn't really express many views on things that could really attract interest (dodgy statements on ethnic minorities or women or whatever).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,830
    edited August 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    The problem seems to me to be similar to looking for market inefficiencies / markets where you can leverage an advantage e.g. most straight track events are incredibly "market efficient" as the barrier to entry is low and we know that for instance for distance running a certain genetic makeup (being descended for about 2 tribes). Team GB trying to fund somebody without that genetic makeup seems a fools errand.

    Instead there are loads of sports where barrier to entry is higher and that excellent technique can balance out some genetic disadvantages. Its finding those sports and events and matching the right people and resources. This is what the Chinese have been doing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    Isn't it because of your own timeline, being tailored to your interests? It doesn't on mine, though there are several trending hashtags on mine to do with the football.
    Boris is a liar on mine.

  • CandyCandy Posts: 51
    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    We didn't get the choice, so you're trying to out-HYUFD with the possibilities.
    Pedant mode, but there is a choice. You can choose not to get it.
    Now that really would be insane, given that the vaccines offered (more correctly, allocated without choice) were decent options.
    And yet EU people rejected AZ, despite it being a decent option. Why did they do that? They believed that their identity as EU people required them to reject AZ.

    Interesting that Scots didn't share in that project. They didn't feel the need join in the trashing of AZ as part of their EU identity. They didn't feel the need to cheer when Ursula von der Leyen sued AZ.

    Maybe the reason is they have no EU identity...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,939

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    Isn't it because of your own timeline, being tailored to your interests? It doesn't on mine, though there are several trending hashtags on mine to do with the football.
    Boris is a liar on mine.

    Only on yours? He’s improving.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    Meanwhile, back on planet Earth…
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,650
    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    We didn't get the choice, so you're trying to out-HYUFD with the possibilities.
    Pedant mode, but there is a choice. You can choose not to get it.
    Now that really would be insane, given that the vaccines offered (more correctly, allocated without choice) were decent options.
    And yet EU people rejected AZ, despite it being a decent option. Why did they do that? They believed that their identity as EU people required them to reject AZ.

    Interesting that Scots didn't share in that project. They didn't feel the need join in the trashing of AZ as part of their EU identity. They didn't feel the need to cheer when Ursula von der Leyen sued AZ.

    Maybe the reason is they have no EU identity...
    Loads of European people didn't cheer Ursula. Many of my friends and colleagues are Italian and French. They were as disgusted by Ursula and Macron as the rest of us. The EU isn't Europe, it doesn't speak for Europe or Europeans. The EU is a ship of fools and will continue to let down normal Europeans.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,313
    alex_ said:

    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
    Just wait till HYUFD becomes a candidate for Westminster. He's been warned by me (a pro-in dy Scot), Charles (whom we all know) and everyone in between, [edit] of the risk he is running in his comments here.

    Profoundly unlikely. We have the screenshots. As do half of Fleet Street.
    Is 'half of Fleet Street really hanging off everyone word of a parish Councillor from Essex?
    They will be when they get the screenshots the other half have.
    Don't think so. Whatever HYUFD's reputation on here, about the most "outrageous" thing that anyone could unearth would be around his somewhat idiosyncratic views on how quickly the UK govt would be to deploy the armed forces (including nuclear weapons) in defence of Gibraltar or to suppress unilateral rebellion in Scotland.

    There are any number of Tory MPs out there where the main question is in determining the extent to which their public statements are an indication of mere ignorance or insanity. HYUFD doesn't really express many views on things that could really attract interest (dodgy statements on ethnic minorities or women or whatever).
    Aha. You weren’t around for that thread. No probs. Most of us have a real life.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    Adam Brooks
    @EssexPR
    ·
    4h
    There are HUGE names in Hospitality & events ready to serve the Government legal action over Vaccine passports.
    Some of the names head up or have run billion pound businesses with hide amounts of employees.

    Vaccine passports could destroy one of the country’s biggest industries.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799

    alex_ said:

    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT Carnyx
    'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'

    The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.

    If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    You have not answered the basic issue - of your disgraceful and deliberate exclusion of all non-Catholic Christians from representation in the HoL through their churches.
    Far from it. Less than 5% of Lords are Bishops, I said you could add some Catholic Bishops (if the Vatican agreed) and Imams and Rabbis too.

    I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists too but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some ministers and elders
    HAve you not even heard of Moderators in the Presbyterian Churches, and the equivalents in the other free churches? They are elected, unlike the bishops and archbishops. But maybe that is too democratic for the HoL in your view.
    Tbf HYUFD was convinced that CoS had bishops up till a couple of years ago. His grasp of the issue is on a par with his grasp of Scottish geography and ferry routes.
    I often wonder why central office let such a doofus loose on the sensitive topic of Jockland. You’d almost think they want rid of us.
    I wonder that anyone could be so silly as to think what is said on here has any actual impact on voters anywhere.
    Just wait till HYUFD becomes a candidate for Westminster. He's been warned by me (a pro-in dy Scot), Charles (whom we all know) and everyone in between, [edit] of the risk he is running in his comments here.

    Profoundly unlikely. We have the screenshots. As do half of Fleet Street.
    Is 'half of Fleet Street really hanging off everyone word of a parish Councillor from Essex?
    They will be when they get the screenshots the other half have.
    Don't think so. Whatever HYUFD's reputation on here, about the most "outrageous" thing that anyone could unearth would be around his somewhat idiosyncratic views on how quickly the UK govt would be to deploy the armed forces (including nuclear weapons) in defence of Gibraltar or to suppress unilateral rebellion in Scotland.

    There are any number of Tory MPs out there where the main question is in determining the extent to which their public statements are an indication of mere ignorance or insanity. HYUFD doesn't really express many views on things that could really attract interest (dodgy statements on ethnic minorities or women or whatever).
    Aha. You weren’t around for that thread. No probs. Most of us have a real life.
    What thread? I have never expressed a racist or misogynist comment on here
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209

    Adam Brooks
    @EssexPR
    ·
    4h
    There are HUGE names in Hospitality & events ready to serve the Government legal action over Vaccine passports.
    Some of the names head up or have run billion pound businesses with hide amounts of employees.

    Vaccine passports could destroy one of the country’s biggest industries.

    What hyperbole. They are used in other countries without said industries being destroyed.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,150
    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    We didn't get the choice, so you're trying to out-HYUFD with the possibilities.
    Pedant mode, but there is a choice. You can choose not to get it.
    Now that really would be insane, given that the vaccines offered (more correctly, allocated without choice) were decent options.
    And yet EU people rejected AZ, despite it being a decent option. Why did they do that? They believed that their identity as EU people required them to reject AZ.

    Interesting that Scots didn't share in that project. They didn't feel the need join in the trashing of AZ as part of their EU identity. They didn't feel the need to cheer when Ursula von der Leyen sued AZ.

    Maybe the reason is they have no EU identity...
    Eh? To a PB nerd (and I am one too TBF) and a leaver, it might mean a lot, but in the average world?

    It wasn't the EU citizens' identity that led them to reject AZ - it was the trashing of AZ, miserable as it was. Not tyhe same thing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,466

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome

    So, a potential solution to the housing crisis, while also boosting the Italian economy.

    Smart.
    Few of them would actually move to Rome, just would lead to more Catholic churches being built in England as most of their congregation would move with them
    I do hope the DUP are reading this.
    As an atheist it seems to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is summed up by the contrast between Bach's St Matthew Passion and All Things Bright And Beautiful.
    No the difference is more fundamental. In Catholicism the clergy control the congregations, in Protestantism it is the congregations that are in control. The C o E is an unhappy fudge between the two.
    I agree. Democracy makes all the difference, which is why Protestant ritual is dreadfully dull. Who would pay money to attend a concert of Hymns Ancient and Modern? Traditional Catholic ritual on the other hand is designed to make the congregation feel tiny and insignificant, which imho is the appropriate response when confronted by the magnitude of creation.
    Strangely I was recently having just this conversation with a friend who is Greek Orthodox. The way I see it, there are 4 strands to religious understanding:

    1) written texts
    2) Church traditions
    3) liturgy
    4 inward experience/mysticism.

    The emphasis in Protestantism is on the first and fourth, with the second and third marginalised, while for Catholics these are the most important.

    Protestantism ritual is dull, because it is of no importance, indeed it is an obstacle, a form of idolatry.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    Eric Topol
    @EricTopol
    ·
    2h
    Is this 🦠 a challenge?
    The situation in Iceland, now vertical in case rise, yet one of the most fully vaccinated countries in the world. No sequence data available http://outbreak.info, assuming this is d/t Delta
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,248
    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    Wasn't one of the complaints about the "find tall women/men" programme - which i don't think was actually designed primarily to bring medal success but to allow GB to reach a threshold standard to compete in London in events that we wouldn't normally get close to - that it was specifically a "one Games deal" (short of outstanding unexpected success) but the sports that were helped over this period thought that they had done enough to retain a level of financial support that didn't continue.

    Re: the complaint about Rugby sevens above - of course one of the reasons why things like cycling/sailing/swimming etc were prioritised was that they could deliver large medal hauls and were therefore pretty good value (multiple medals and (mainly) individual events. Funding something like rugby sevens requires potentially large scale per capita investment, and at the end of it you only get 1/2 medals at most. Bluntly, "seven" people may win a medal, but it only counts as one in the table.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,268
    RobD said:

    Adam Brooks
    @EssexPR
    ·
    4h
    There are HUGE names in Hospitality & events ready to serve the Government legal action over Vaccine passports.
    Some of the names head up or have run billion pound businesses with hide amounts of employees.

    Vaccine passports could destroy one of the country’s biggest industries.

    What hyperbole. They are used in other countries without said industries being destroyed.
    Besides that wasn't there some polling that showed that people want vaccine passports for hospitality? i.e. Give the customers what they want.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,443
    edited August 2021
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    Isn't it because of your own timeline, being tailored to your interests? It doesn't on mine, though there are several trending hashtags on mine to do with the football.
    It may be in the "UK Politics" category which I'm interested in. But I've never searched specifically for GB News on Twitter.
  • Eric Topol
    @EricTopol
    ·
    2h
    Is this 🦠 a challenge?
    The situation in Iceland, now vertical in case rise, yet one of the most fully vaccinated countries in the world. No sequence data available http://outbreak.info, assuming this is d/t Delta

    https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-iceland-vaccines-idUSL1N2P918F
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,248
    glw said:

    RobD said:

    Adam Brooks
    @EssexPR
    ·
    4h
    There are HUGE names in Hospitality & events ready to serve the Government legal action over Vaccine passports.
    Some of the names head up or have run billion pound businesses with hide amounts of employees.

    Vaccine passports could destroy one of the country’s biggest industries.

    What hyperbole. They are used in other countries without said industries being destroyed.
    Besides that wasn't there some polling that showed that people want vaccine passports for hospitality? i.e. Give the customers what they want.
    "People" want them, or "customers" want them? Not quite the same thing...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209

    Eric Topol
    @EricTopol
    ·
    2h
    Is this 🦠 a challenge?
    The situation in Iceland, now vertical in case rise, yet one of the most fully vaccinated countries in the world. No sequence data available http://outbreak.info, assuming this is d/t Delta

    The population of Iceland is 300k, so that surge corresponds to 60 people. Easy to explain with a cluster of unvaccinated people for example.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,248

    Eric Topol
    @EricTopol
    ·
    2h
    Is this 🦠 a challenge?
    The situation in Iceland, now vertical in case rise, yet one of the most fully vaccinated countries in the world. No sequence data available http://outbreak.info, assuming this is d/t Delta

    In a 100% vaccinated population, 100% of cases, hospitalisations and deaths will be vaccinated people...
  • Boris Johnson ‘nearly swept out to sea during Scottish holiday’

    PM came close to ‘catastrophe’ off north-west coast last year, according to report

    The prime minister is said to have told friends he would go back for a holiday “over my dead body”.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-scotland-holiday-sea-b1898730.html?amp

    Poor old Govey.

    Where's Ahab when you need him?
    "I'll follow him around the Horn, and around the Norway maelstrom, and around perdition's flames before I give him up!"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,466
    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Almost every time I go on Twitter these days "GB News" is trending. I wonder why.

    Isn't it because of your own timeline, being tailored to your interests? It doesn't on mine, though there are several trending hashtags on mine to do with the football.
    It may be in the "UK Politics" category which I'm interested in. But I've never searched specifically for GB News on Twitter.
    Yes, but because you are interested in right wing politics and views, the algorithm pops it into your feed, but it doesn't in mine. That is how social media works, it keeps you in your bubble.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209
    alex_ said:

    Eric Topol
    @EricTopol
    ·
    2h
    Is this 🦠 a challenge?
    The situation in Iceland, now vertical in case rise, yet one of the most fully vaccinated countries in the world. No sequence data available http://outbreak.info, assuming this is d/t Delta

    In a 100% vaccinated population, 100% of cases, hospitalisations and deaths will be vaccinated people...
    Journalists will never understand this.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,443
    Every subject on BBC News is either something we should be incredibly pessimistic about, or something we should be ecstatic about. There's never anything in between.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,830
    edited August 2021
    alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    Wasn't one of the complaints about the "find tall women/men" programme - which i don't think was actually designed primarily to bring medal success but to allow GB to reach a threshold standard to compete in London in events that we wouldn't normally get close to - that it was specifically a "one Games deal" (short of outstanding unexpected success) but the sports that were helped over this period thought that they had done enough to retain a level of financial support that didn't continue.

    Re: the complaint about Rugby sevens above - of course one of the reasons why things like cycling/sailing/swimming etc were prioritised was that they could deliver large medal hauls and were therefore pretty good value (multiple medals and (mainly) individual events. Funding something like rugby sevens requires potentially large scale per capita investment, and at the end of it you only get 1/2 medals at most. Bluntly, "seven" people may win a medal, but it only counts as one in the table.
    But we are also going to be taking money away from rowing, swimming, sailing, gymnastics, equestrian i.e. ones where loads of medals can be won.

    And BMX is getting a load of money, when you can only win 4 medals... skateboard the same....

    Basketball and surfing getting money, again, where you can't win many medals (and Team GB won't win any). Vs less monet for modern pentathlon and rugby 7s, which Team GB are world class at.

    So you argument doesn't really hold up.
  • alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    Wasn't one of the complaints about the "find tall women/men" programme - which i don't think was actually designed primarily to bring medal success but to allow GB to reach a threshold standard to compete in London in events that we wouldn't normally get close to - that it was specifically a "one Games deal" (short of outstanding unexpected success) but the sports that were helped over this period thought that they had done enough to retain a level of financial support that didn't continue.

    Re: the complaint about Rugby sevens above - of course one of the reasons why things like cycling/sailing/swimming etc were prioritised was that they could deliver large medal hauls and were therefore pretty good value (multiple medals and (mainly) individual events. Funding something like rugby sevens requires potentially large scale per capita investment, and at the end of it you only get 1/2 medals at most. Bluntly, "seven" people may win a medal, but it only counts as one in the table.
    But we are also going to be taking money away from rowing, swimming, sailing, gymnastics, equestrian i.e. ones where loads of medals can be won. Also modern pentathlon, that gets cut....

    And BMX is getting a load of money, when you can only win 4 medals... skateboard the same....

    So you argument doesn't really hold up.
    Why does they call it "modern pentathlon", but just plain "decathlon" and "heptathlon"?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,248
    edited August 2021

    alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    Wasn't one of the complaints about the "find tall women/men" programme - which i don't think was actually designed primarily to bring medal success but to allow GB to reach a threshold standard to compete in London in events that we wouldn't normally get close to - that it was specifically a "one Games deal" (short of outstanding unexpected success) but the sports that were helped over this period thought that they had done enough to retain a level of financial support that didn't continue.

    Re: the complaint about Rugby sevens above - of course one of the reasons why things like cycling/sailing/swimming etc were prioritised was that they could deliver large medal hauls and were therefore pretty good value (multiple medals and (mainly) individual events. Funding something like rugby sevens requires potentially large scale per capita investment, and at the end of it you only get 1/2 medals at most. Bluntly, "seven" people may win a medal, but it only counts as one in the table.
    But we are also going to be taking money away from rowing, swimming, sailing, gymnastics, equestrian i.e. ones where loads of medals can be won. Also modern pentathlon, that gets cut....

    And BMX is getting a load of money, when you can only win 4 medals... skateboard thr same....
    To be honest i don't know much about what is set to happen now - my comment was addressing the 2012 and aftermath situation.

    I do know that some complained that there was too much focus on medals and/or sports which were allegedly unaccessible to the population at large, at the expense of grassroots sport and improving the health of the nation. Of course everything presented in simplistic arguments as these things usually are.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,049

    Boris Johnson ‘nearly swept out to sea during Scottish holiday’

    PM came close to ‘catastrophe’ off north-west coast last year, according to report

    The prime minister is said to have told friends he would go back for a holiday “over my dead body”.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-scotland-holiday-sea-b1898730.html?amp

    Poor old Govey.

    Where's Ahab when you need him?
    "I'll follow him around the Horn, and around the Norway maelstrom, and around perdition's flames before I give him up!"
    Call me Ishmael.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209

    alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    Wasn't one of the complaints about the "find tall women/men" programme - which i don't think was actually designed primarily to bring medal success but to allow GB to reach a threshold standard to compete in London in events that we wouldn't normally get close to - that it was specifically a "one Games deal" (short of outstanding unexpected success) but the sports that were helped over this period thought that they had done enough to retain a level of financial support that didn't continue.

    Re: the complaint about Rugby sevens above - of course one of the reasons why things like cycling/sailing/swimming etc were prioritised was that they could deliver large medal hauls and were therefore pretty good value (multiple medals and (mainly) individual events. Funding something like rugby sevens requires potentially large scale per capita investment, and at the end of it you only get 1/2 medals at most. Bluntly, "seven" people may win a medal, but it only counts as one in the table.
    But we are also going to be taking money away from rowing, swimming, sailing, gymnastics, equestrian i.e. ones where loads of medals can be won. Also modern pentathlon, that gets cut....

    And BMX is getting a load of money, when you can only win 4 medals... skateboard the same....

    So you argument doesn't really hold up.
    Why does they call it "modern pentathlon", but just plain "decathlon" and "heptathlon"?
    Maybe it's the only one with an ancient counterpart?
  • CandyCandy Posts: 51
    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Candy said:

    isam said:

    If there were another Indy Ref, I think Leave would win. Brexit changed everything I reckon

    I don't think it changed as much as the pundits think.

    In the Great Vaccine Wars, note that Scots (and Northern Irish and Welsh) had no hesitation at all in taking the English vaccine. Whereas in the EU, individuals were walking out of vaccine centres when they were told they were going to be jabbed with AZ - and this happened across the EU, whether in Germany, Finland, France Denmark or Greece etc.

    That leads me to think that the Scottish mentality, at a gut instinct level, is still British rather than EU. When it came to the crunch in a life-and-death issue, their instinct was to trust the British govt and Oxford University, rather than UrsuIa von Leyen and her crew.
    I think you are confusing perceived efficacy with the label on the box.
    I don't think so. Your average person doesn't know the ins and outs of how vaccines are made and how effective (or safe) they are. They just go by what their tribal leaders say.

    In the EU, they poured scorn on AZ, and ordinary EU citizens took note and refused to be jabbed with AZ.

    If Scots felt they were part of the EU tribe, they'd have behaved in the same way.

    But they didn't. They rolled their eyes at the EU behaviour and got their AZ jabs as soon as they were offered.

    At bottom they didn't think they were being given a foreign suspect English vaccine, but that they were being given a good British vaccine which they as Brits collectively owned. Their gut tribal allegience, in a life-and-death situation, was with Britain and Oxford University.
    No: it was because they had no choice, and the thing worked fairly well. Not because it was patriotic in any sense.

    In any case, how dol you explain Pfixer on that basis? We got what was available.
    Britain was the first in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Again, trust in the MHRA, a British org, comes into play. Nobody in Britain believed that the approval of Pfizer was "rushed" as alleged by the EU.

    At a gut level, there was more trust in British institutions, than EU ones. If you trust British institutions more than EU ones, why would you leave Britain to join the EU? Does anyone join an organisation that they don't really trust at gut level? Would anyone in Scotland put their lives in Ursula von der Leyen's hands?
    We didn't get the choice, so you're trying to out-HYUFD with the possibilities.
    Pedant mode, but there is a choice. You can choose not to get it.
    Now that really would be insane, given that the vaccines offered (more correctly, allocated without choice) were decent options.
    And yet EU people rejected AZ, despite it being a decent option. Why did they do that? They believed that their identity as EU people required them to reject AZ.

    Interesting that Scots didn't share in that project. They didn't feel the need join in the trashing of AZ as part of their EU identity. They didn't feel the need to cheer when Ursula von der Leyen sued AZ.

    Maybe the reason is they have no EU identity...
    Eh? To a PB nerd (and I am one too TBF) and a leaver, it might mean a lot, but in the average world?

    It wasn't the EU citizens' identity that led them to reject AZ - it was the trashing of AZ, miserable as it was. Not tyhe same thing.
    It comes down to "who" trashed it, and do you trust the people who were trashing it.

    The point I'm making is that the trashing was done by the EU, and EU citizens trusted the people doing the trashing and thus refused to take the AZ vaccine.

    But in Scotland, they DIDN'T trust the EU people who were trashing the vaccine, and decided Boris, Sarah Gilbert, Chris Whitty and co were more trustworthy.

    If Scottish people don't trust the EU and what they say, why on earth would they want to join them?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,151

    alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    Wasn't one of the complaints about the "find tall women/men" programme - which i don't think was actually designed primarily to bring medal success but to allow GB to reach a threshold standard to compete in London in events that we wouldn't normally get close to - that it was specifically a "one Games deal" (short of outstanding unexpected success) but the sports that were helped over this period thought that they had done enough to retain a level of financial support that didn't continue.

    Re: the complaint about Rugby sevens above - of course one of the reasons why things like cycling/sailing/swimming etc were prioritised was that they could deliver large medal hauls and were therefore pretty good value (multiple medals and (mainly) individual events. Funding something like rugby sevens requires potentially large scale per capita investment, and at the end of it you only get 1/2 medals at most. Bluntly, "seven" people may win a medal, but it only counts as one in the table.
    But we are also going to be taking money away from rowing, swimming, sailing, gymnastics, equestrian i.e. ones where loads of medals can be won. Also modern pentathlon, that gets cut....

    And BMX is getting a load of money, when you can only win 4 medals... skateboard the same....

    So you argument doesn't really hold up.
    Why does they call it "modern pentathlon", but just plain "decathlon" and "heptathlon"?
    To distinguish it from the ancient Greek pentathlon, I assume.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,248

    alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just finished the three part BBC documentary on the Olympic funding. Really interesting and shows just how focussed both the sporting bodies are as well as the athletes.

    An absolute must watch, memories of 2012 were quite amazing too. Just thinking back to those two/three weeks of the London Olympics and remembering how amazing it was to be a Londoner, living in terrible shared flat in Camden trying to get tickets for literally any possible event and scoring evening velodrome tickets for two nights and for the relay finals in the stadium. Some of the greatest sporting moments I've ever witnessed.

    What was really impressive, IMO, was the business like way that UK Sport approached the funding arrangements. It's sad that so much of the funding ruthlessness is being unwound and we're now wasting money on sports and categories we won't ever medal in and funding athletes that won't medal.

    Some of the scattershot methods they showed were great too "find tall women". It worked too. I do wonder whether we should try that again now for the run up to LA and then smash the Australians in Brisbane just for good measure.

    My wife suggested that UK Olympic success was one of the factors in Brexit. It made the nation proud to be British, for two weeks every four years being patriotic wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. She made a persuasive argument.

    Wasn't one of the complaints about the "find tall women/men" programme - which i don't think was actually designed primarily to bring medal success but to allow GB to reach a threshold standard to compete in London in events that we wouldn't normally get close to - that it was specifically a "one Games deal" (short of outstanding unexpected success) but the sports that were helped over this period thought that they had done enough to retain a level of financial support that didn't continue.

    Re: the complaint about Rugby sevens above - of course one of the reasons why things like cycling/sailing/swimming etc were prioritised was that they could deliver large medal hauls and were therefore pretty good value (multiple medals and (mainly) individual events. Funding something like rugby sevens requires potentially large scale per capita investment, and at the end of it you only get 1/2 medals at most. Bluntly, "seven" people may win a medal, but it only counts as one in the table.
    But we are also going to be taking money away from rowing, swimming, sailing, gymnastics, equestrian i.e. ones where loads of medals can be won. Also modern pentathlon, that gets cut....

    And BMX is getting a load of money, when you can only win 4 medals... skateboard the same....

    So you argument doesn't really hold up.
    Why does they call it "modern pentathlon", but just plain "decathlon" and "heptathlon"?
    Because the "modern pentathlon" was specifically invented as a competition designed as "modern" interpretation of the historic elements of success of warriors in battle.
This discussion has been closed.