Howdy, Stranger!

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

Starmer’s big speech barely moves the betting markets – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    https://chaophraya.co.uk/glasgow/ if you like Thai food
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Alastair Campbell would have had Sir Keir make his big speech yesterday, so as not to be overshadowed by another story that was scheduled for today and always going to lead the news.

    SKS led the 6 o'clock news with a broadly favourable piece lasting about 5 minutes.
    And he’s still the headline on BBC News website.

    The snag is, he’s down to number 8 on the most read.

    However worthy his speech (and a quick scan of comments suggests he did pretty well) he’s apparently still struggling to cut through.

    Of course, a week from now we may find it’s resonating.
    I'd have thought the important thing was how it made labour members feel, did it secure him and effectively neuter his internal critics.

    That puts him time and internal momentum, and so effectiveness, and the public facing clips then can be used in months and years to come as that effective messaging and support takes effect.

    Maybe.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,854
    isam said:

    Maybe he finds it hard to talk about his background because he went to a Grammar school, which went Private while he was there (possibly paid for by the state)

    You cant really say "I want working class people to get the life chances I got as a youngster", whilst forbidding them - so best to keep schtum

    Oh dear. Here speaks our working class Uncle Tom in thrall to the posh boys.
  • ping said:

    isam said:

    gealbhan said:

    isam said:

    I don't think a speech is going to move the betting markets really, unless it was outrageously bad, which it obviously wasn't

    Might move the polls though, which would move the markets I guess

    As the front bench have spent the week reaching out to lost voters, I think it will move the polls.

    It may be a mistake to blame fuel crisis for poll movement and say it’s short term, if Labour deal with it lexit glass ceiling in polls then removing the Tory majority at next election could be very much on.
    Lexit voters left because of immigration- The Tories gave 5,000 Visas to foreign drivers, and Sir Keir said he'd have made it 100,000
    Yes. That was a mistake by sks.

    However good his speech was, today, he’s shown his neoliberal impulses. He’s comfortable with low skilled migration. The country, and red wall labour voters, are not.

    He should be out-torying the tories on low-skilled migration.
    The people who support lots of immigration use ""neo-liberal" as an insult.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,943
    edited September 2021
    Leon said:

    Just realised - in my geeky shame - I've watched quite a few party leader speeches, over the years, particularly the debuts, but also some others. Very few affected me - or politics - but these stand out:


    Blair 's debut in 1994. Not a great speech (if you watch it now he is extremely stiff, far from the confident charmer he became) but you just knew he was going to win in 1997, ending the many years of Toryism

    Thatcher's in Brighton after the IRA bomb in 1984. Extraordinary. Her resilience, the drama, the horror of it all. A prime minister moving towards greatness (this still looks amazing in retrospect)

    Kinnock's Militant speech. Brave, fiery, dramatic, the beginning of a long slow recuperation (finished by Blair)

    Corbyn's first speech, so utterly bad, so ridiculously inept, you knew Labour were heading for a terrible result - at some point- if they kept him

    Theresa May's Red Line speech. One of the stupidest speeches ever made. I recall watching it in stunned disbelief as she boxed herself in, red line by red line, ensuring a horrendously complex and painful Brexit, and condemning herself in the process


    And that's it. Those are the only really significant ones, that impacted me or the world. Apart from that I can recall
    some of Blair's later lines ("causes of crime"), some Thatcher stuff ("the Lady's not for turning"), the IDS volume man cringefest. Maybe a Boris gag if I really try? But what tho?

    I cannot recall any single thing from Major, Brown, Smith, Foot, or Cameron. Nor Starmer. He only did it today and it's gone. Whoosh


    Gordon Brown's speeches were like Peter Lilley's used to be for the Tories – well-written but badly delivered. It is telling you remember Blair's tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime which was actually coined for him by Brown.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,282

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Look North did a tour of filling stations in Barnsley. Most fully stocked with no queues. Hopefully we are seeing the back of this nonsense.

    I drove for an hour last night without finding a petrol station that was open, and another hour this morning before queuing for 40 mins to fill up.

    Very thoughtlessly I made myself a self service Costa Hot Chocolate before I left the shop. It only dawned on me as I was walking out how annoying that must be for the 50 odd cars behind me... so I tried to cover up the cup!
    Yeah, Blair felt like a winner from the start. Tho of course his circumstances were entirely different, and the 92-97 Tory government was loathed. And Boris is much more formidable, on multiple levels, than Major

    IF I was forced to bet now I would predict a narrow Tory win in 2024, then the wheels will come off HMG, also Sturgeon will retire, and Labour will get a narrow majority (with a few more Scottish seats) in about 2028

    Lord knows who will be their leader by then
    Blair had the massive advantage that the heavy lifting had been done by Kinnock and Smith. Labour already had a comfy lead and Blair's job was to not stuff it up. Which he did with brutal aplomb. Starmer, like Smith, is imaginable as PM in a way Kinnock wasn't. But Operation Dynorod is only part-finished.

    Agree that the centre of the needle is a narrow Conservative win... and that makes 2024 more likely. But the range bar then goes from comfy Conservative to Coalition of chaos.

    On top of that, I don't see BoJo having the guile to make a small majority work like Major did. It was ugly, but he survived five years. And if BoJo goes, the magic goes as well.
    Yep. And also, after another probable but slender win in 2024, the Tories will have been in power for a decade and a half, and if they get to 2028 - a full 18 years. People will be mightily sick of them

    If Labour can somehow recover in Scotland a landslide Labour win would be quite likely - in 2028 (or whenever the next but one GE occurs)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,282
    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    Just realised - in my geeky shame - I've watched quite a few party leader speeches, over the years, particularly the debuts, but also some others. Very few affected me - or politics - but these stand out:


    Blair 's debut in 1994. Not a great speech (if you watch it now he is extremely stiff, far from the confident charmer he became) but you just knew he was going to win in 1997, ending the many years of Toryism

    Thatcher's in Brighton after the IRA bomb in 1984. Extraordinary. Her resilience, the drama, the horror of it all. A prime minister moving towards greatness (this still looks amazing in retrospect)

    Kinnock's Militant speech. Brave, fiery, dramatic, the beginning of a long slow recuperation (finished by Blair)

    Corbyn's first speech, so utterly bad, so ridiculously inept, you knew Labour were heading for a terrible result - at some point- if they kept him

    Theresa May's Red Line speech. One of the stupidest speeches ever made. I recall watching it in stunned disbelief as she boxed herself in, red line by red line, ensuring a horrendously complex and painful Brexit, and condemning herself in the process


    And that's it. Those are the only really significant ones, that impacted me or the world. Apart from that I can recall
    some of Blair's later lines ("causes of crime"), some Thatcher stuff ("the Lady's not for turning"), the IDS volume man cringefest. Maybe a Boris gag if I really try? But what tho?

    I cannot recall any single thing from Major, Brown, Smith, Foot, or Cameron. Nor Starmer. He only did it today and it's gone. Whoosh


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6J2QUw0A-0

    British jobs for British workers.
    I've just remembered "let sunshine win the day" - and winced
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,099
    edited September 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    Are you sure?

    I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London.

    On the restaurants, is there not a tea-room where you would fit in?
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    edited September 2021
    ydoethur said:

    Vaccination news: there was a large team of nurses in school today vaccinating Years 8-11, among to get them all done in a day.

    How close did they get? No sign of them in my school yet.
    They were running a bit late when my Y10 class was supposed to go, but they were trying to get them all done before lunch: I think they got them done by the end of the day.

    I didn’t do a survey, but I got the impression that very few didn’t want it, though a number couldn’t have it as they had recently had C19.

    Edit: we also didn’t get much notice; the message to parents went out on Monday.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    ping said:

    isam said:

    gealbhan said:

    isam said:

    I don't think a speech is going to move the betting markets really, unless it was outrageously bad, which it obviously wasn't

    Might move the polls though, which would move the markets I guess

    As the front bench have spent the week reaching out to lost voters, I think it will move the polls.

    It may be a mistake to blame fuel crisis for poll movement and say it’s short term, if Labour deal with it lexit glass ceiling in polls then removing the Tory majority at next election could be very much on.
    Lexit voters left because of immigration- The Tories gave 5,000 Visas to foreign drivers, and Sir Keir said he'd have made it 100,000
    Yes. That was a mistake by sks.

    However good his speech was, today, he’s shown his neoliberal impulses. He’s comfortable with low skilled migration. The country, and red wall labour voters, are not.

    He should be out-torying the tories on low-skilled migration.
    The people who support lots of immigration use ""neo-liberal" as an insult.
    In fairness I've not seen it in awhile. Losing its sting?

    I never knew what it meant.
  • The thing that will kill the Tories off is incompetence, corruption and cynical voter coalition management.

    That's why it's essential Boris Johnson is replaced as PM as soon as possible.

    He won't be.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,282
    The first beavers in the River Avon in 400 years. Awwww


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-58722049
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    edited September 2021
    Leon said:

    Just realised - in my geeky shame - I've watched quite a few party leader speeches, over the years, particularly the debuts, but also some others. Very few affected me - or politics - but these stand out:


    Blair 's debut in 1994. Not a great speech (if you watch it now he is extremely stiff, far from the confident charmer he became) but you just knew he was going to win in 1997, ending the many years of Toryism

    Thatcher's in Brighton after the IRA bomb in 1984. Extraordinary. Her resilience, the drama, the horror of it all. A prime minister moving towards greatness (this still looks amazing in retrospect)

    Kinnock's Militant speech. Brave, fiery, dramatic, the beginning of a long slow recuperation (finished by Blair)

    Corbyn's first speech, so utterly bad, so ridiculously inept, you knew Labour were heading for a terrible result - at some point- if they kept him

    Theresa May's Red Line speech. One of the stupidest speeches ever made. I recall watching it in stunned disbelief as she boxed herself in, red line by red line, ensuring a horrendously complex and painful Brexit, and condemning herself in the process


    And that's it. Those are the only really significant ones, that impacted me or the world. Apart from that I can recall
    some of Blair's later lines ("causes of crime"), some Thatcher stuff ("the Lady's not for turning"), the IDS volume man cringefest. Maybe a Boris gag if I really try? But what tho?

    I cannot recall any single thing from Major, Brown, Smith, Foot, or Cameron. Nor Starmer. He only did it today and it's gone. Whoosh


    I can remember IDS's "quiet man" speech, and also John Major's "put up or shut up" although that wasn't at a party conference.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748
    edited September 2021

    Sandpit said:

    Alastair Campbell would have had Sir Keir make his big speech yesterday, so as not to be overshadowed by another story that was scheduled for today and always going to lead the news.

    SKS led the 6 o'clock news with a broadly favourable piece lasting about 5 minutes.
    Does it really matter anymore? A conference speech is never going to be big news in the way that it was in the pre internet era. Such a speech is for consumption mostly by the party, and political geeks. It is amazing it gets the coverage it has, given the other news today.

    I suspect the main effect of the speech will be to encourage lots of Corbynite activists and hard left entryists to give up on the labour party. The political question this poses is where will they go.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,154
    edited September 2021
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    Are you sure?

    I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London.
    No, the vegan s.r. were welcomed.

    Is it possibly the deep fried Mars bars you have in mind? (not Greggs) - but they are Scots cuisine for the tourists [edited], not the locals.
  • Foxy said:

    It does look as if there is a floor effect for some voters, but even so quite a shift in 3 months amongst Tory and Leave voters:

    Who thinks Brexit has been going well this year?

    Con voters: 39% (-12)
    Leave voters: 35% (-10)
    British public: 18% (-7)
    Remain voters: 5% (-3)
    Lab voters: 3% (-2)

    Changes from Jun 21, 2021

    https://t.co/Vc1NkmmAS0 https://t.co/m80O2Itxmg

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1443245367349424130?s=19

    OK, this is at the peak(?) of this crisis. In the same way that the Vax Wars led to a shift to "Brexit is a good idea" which dissipated after a while, some of this is probably temporary.

    Questions are:
    1 What will the numbers be when things settle down?
    2 How does the government respond? Softening Brexit will be politically suicidal, but how does a government stick with a plan that even it's backers think is going badly?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Look North did a tour of filling stations in Barnsley. Most fully stocked with no queues. Hopefully we are seeing the back of this nonsense.

    I drove for an hour last night without finding a petrol station that was open, and another hour this morning before queuing for 40 mins to fill up.

    Very thoughtlessly I made myself a self service Costa Hot Chocolate before I left the shop. It only dawned on me as I was walking out how annoying that must be for the 50 odd cars behind me... so I tried to cover up the cup!
    Yeah, Blair felt like a winner from the start. Tho of course his circumstances were entirely different, and the 92-97 Tory government was loathed. And Boris is much more formidable, on multiple levels, than Major

    IF I was forced to bet now I would predict a narrow Tory win in 2024, then the wheels will come off HMG, also Sturgeon will retire, and Labour will get a narrow majority (with a few more Scottish seats) in about 2028

    Lord knows who will be their leader by then
    Blair had the massive advantage that the heavy lifting had been done by Kinnock and Smith. Labour already had a comfy lead and Blair's job was to not stuff it up. Which he did with brutal aplomb. Starmer, like Smith, is imaginable as PM in a way Kinnock wasn't. But Operation Dynorod is only part-finished.

    Agree that the centre of the needle is a narrow Conservative win... and that makes 2024 more likely. But the range bar then goes from comfy Conservative to Coalition of chaos.

    On top of that, I don't see BoJo having the guile to make a small majority work like Major did. It was ugly, but he survived five years. And if BoJo goes, the magic goes as well.
    Since 1832, only one single party government party has gone unchanged past fifteen consecutive years in office - the Tories under Thatcher and Major.

    That holds good if you reduce the threshold to anything over 13 years, which has been achieved twice, from 1951-64 and 1997-2010.*

    It would not be extraordinary for the Tories to lose office at the next election, and it would be extraordinary and epoch shattering for them to win the one after that.

    *The figures are skewed by a number of minority governments appointed without election wins, e.g. the three Derby ministries. I have also consciously excluded 1905-22 and 1931-45 as the governments were radically reconstructed several times during that period. For example, in 1922 Lloyd George was the only remaining cabinet minister from 1905, and one of only three Liberals (both of the others were drifting away from the party at the time).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Just realised - in my geeky shame - I've watched quite a few party leader speeches, over the years, particularly the debuts, but also some others. Very few affected me - or politics - but these stand out:


    Blair 's debut in 1994. Not a great speech (if you watch it now he is extremely stiff, far from the confident charmer he became) but you just knew he was going to win in 1997, ending the many years of Toryism

    Thatcher's in Brighton after the IRA bomb in 1984. Extraordinary. Her resilience, the drama, the horror of it all. A prime minister moving towards greatness (this still looks amazing in retrospect)

    Kinnock's Militant speech. Brave, fiery, dramatic, the beginning of a long slow recuperation (finished by Blair)

    Corbyn's first speech, so utterly bad, so ridiculously inept, you knew Labour were heading for a terrible result - at some point- if they kept him

    Theresa May's Red Line speech. One of the stupidest speeches ever made. I recall watching it in stunned disbelief as she boxed herself in, red line by red line, ensuring a horrendously complex and painful Brexit, and condemning herself in the process


    And that's it. Those are the only really significant ones, that impacted me or the world. Apart from that I can recall
    some of Blair's later lines ("causes of crime"), some Thatcher stuff ("the Lady's not for turning"), the IDS volume man cringefest. Maybe a Boris gag if I really try? But what tho?

    I cannot recall any single thing from Major, Brown, Smith, Foot, or Cameron. Nor Starmer. He only did it today and it's gone. Whoosh


    I can remember IDS's "quiet man" speech, and also John Major's "put up or shut up" although that wasn't at a party conference.
    The “Quiet Man” speech went down really well in the hall and with the media at the time - but he was gone within a fortnight!
  • kle4 said:

    Re: WA State congressional redistricting proposals, interesting that NEITHER Democratic nor Republican proposal much affect the two districts currently held by Republicans who voted in favor of impeaching You-Know-Who after the attack on the US Capitol, namely Jaime Herrera Beutler in the 3rd CD (southwest WA) and Dan Newhouse in the 4th CD (Columbia Basin in eastern WA).

    Of course lines for both districts ARE altered, largely due to fact that 3rd has grown in population relative to the rest of the state, while the 4th has declined in relative terms. However, proposed changes to both districts are minimal - certainly compared to situation re: 8th CD.

    Would a partisan supreme court skew the boundaries against the Dems?
    The other way around in WA State.
    Ah, so no incentive to agree early?
    Certainly LESS for the Dems than for the Reps. However, legislators of whatever persuasion are unwilling as a rule to leave redistricting up to the courts, because it's not just a wild card, but surrenders their control of the process. (In WA State the 4 voting redistricting commissioners are each appointed by one of the four legislative caucuses, Sen Ds & Rs, House Ds & Rs.)

    My quasi-educated guess is that they will achieve a compromise before (or rather right at) deadline.
    What's quasi education in this context :)?
    Awareness of what's gone down in past cycles (1991, 2001, 2011) - NOT my first rodeo.

    Plus keeping my ear to the ground . . . until it get full of grasshopers!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    On the German election, I notice that SPD + Green + FDP has drifted to 1.36 (back price) having been as short as c.1.15. Is that just because it hasn't been announced and people start to wonder (they shouldn't, it'll take months to sort out)? Or are the noises a bit less positive for the SPD?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,099
    edited September 2021
    French kicking off about fish, again...

    Seem very keen on 'this FTA says what we say it does', rather than what it actually says. EuCo following French line. The claim about 'exhaustive evidence' seems to be not very credible. Hope that Jersey has sufficient enforcement resources in place.

    Quite vituperative stuff on France 24, all about how retaliation could be done via cutting Electricity connections, blocking traffic on the Chunnel, and by using international students as leverage, and how the British/Jersey move is playing to the Tory Party conference.

    Were this over here, the BBC would be pointing out that the demands are contrary to the FTA and any reaction has to go through the agreed processes.

    French Ministerial statement:

    We understand and share the frustration of our fishermen. We cannot cooperate in confidence with the UK until the deal is honored. We will not hesitate to take retaliatory action, collectively. "

    EU Statement:



  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    ydoethur said:

    Vaccination news: there was a large team of nurses in school today vaccinating Years 8-11, among to get them all done in a day.

    How close did they get? No sign of them in my school yet.
    They were running a bit late when my Y10 class was supposed to go, but they were trying to get them all done before lunch: I think they got them done by the end of the day.

    I didn’t do a survey, but I got the impression that very few didn’t want it, though a number couldn’t have it as they had recently had C19.

    Edit: we also didn’t get much notice; the message to parents went out on Monday.
    I shall stay alert for a summons then. I was thinking more about how many were off.

    Good to hear there was little sign of vaccine hesitancy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Leon said:

    The first beavers in the River Avon in 400 years. Awwww


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-58722049

    First beavers reintroduced, next wolves!

    They're bringing bustards back but no more eating them I guess, the delicious devils.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Look North did a tour of filling stations in Barnsley. Most fully stocked with no queues. Hopefully we are seeing the back of this nonsense.

    I drove for an hour last night without finding a petrol station that was open, and another hour this morning before queuing for 40 mins to fill up.

    Very thoughtlessly I made myself a self service Costa Hot Chocolate before I left the shop. It only dawned on me as I was walking out how annoying that must be for the 50 odd cars behind me... so I tried to cover up the cup!
    Yeah, Blair felt like a winner from the start. Tho of course his circumstances were entirely different, and the 92-97 Tory government was loathed. And Boris is much more formidable, on multiple levels, than Major

    IF I was forced to bet now I would predict a narrow Tory win in 2024, then the wheels will come off HMG, also Sturgeon will retire, and Labour will get a narrow majority (with a few more Scottish seats) in about 2028

    Lord knows who will be their leader by then
    Blair had the massive advantage that the heavy lifting had been done by Kinnock and Smith. Labour already had a comfy lead and Blair's job was to not stuff it up. Which he did with brutal aplomb. Starmer, like Smith, is imaginable as PM in a way Kinnock wasn't. But Operation Dynorod is only part-finished.

    Agree that the centre of the needle is a narrow Conservative win... and that makes 2024 more likely. But the range bar then goes from comfy Conservative to Coalition of chaos.

    On top of that, I don't see BoJo having the guile to make a small majority work like Major did. It was ugly, but he survived five years. And if BoJo goes, the magic goes as well.
    Since 1832, only one single party government party has gone unchanged past fifteen consecutive years in office - the Tories under Thatcher and Major.

    That holds good if you reduce the threshold to anything over 13 years, which has been achieved twice, from 1951-64 and 1997-2010.*

    It would not be extraordinary for the Tories to lose office at the next election, and it would be extraordinary and epoch shattering for them to win the one after that.

    *The figures are skewed by a number of minority governments appointed without election wins, e.g. the three Derby ministries. I have also consciously excluded 1905-22 and 1931-45 as the governments were radically reconstructed several times during that period. For example, in 1922 Lloyd George was the only remaining cabinet minister from 1905, and one of only three Liberals (both of the others were drifting away from the party at the time).
    I guess 79-97, vital though Thatcher was, kind of gets undersold still.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Vaccination news: there was a large team of nurses in school today vaccinating Years 8-11, among to get them all done in a day.

    How close did they get? No sign of them in my school yet.
    They were running a bit late when my Y10 class was supposed to go, but they were trying to get them all done before lunch: I think they got them done by the end of the day.

    I didn’t do a survey, but I got the impression that very few didn’t want it, though a number couldn’t have it as they had recently had C19.

    Edit: we also didn’t get much notice; the message to parents went out on Monday.
    I shall stay alert for a summons then. I was thinking more about how many were off.

    Good to hear there was little sign of vaccine hesitancy.
    Some classes have quite a few off, but as they are aquiring immunity the old fashioned way I’m not sure how much difference it will make overall.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,099
    edited September 2021
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    Are you sure?

    I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London.
    No, the vegan s.r. were welcomed.

    Is it possibly the deep fried Mars bars you have in mind? (not Greggs) - but they are Scots cuisine for the tourists [edited], not the locals.
    I know, but I still think it was I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London. Greggs being amusing in the same way the Midlands would find vagina-steaming treatments in Chelsea amusing.

    I would not mention deep-fried Mars Bars. Though I did slightly enjoy the way OTT version on the Grand Tour.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Re: WA State congressional redistricting proposals, interesting that NEITHER Democratic nor Republican proposal much affect the two districts currently held by Republicans who voted in favor of impeaching You-Know-Who after the attack on the US Capitol, namely Jaime Herrera Beutler in the 3rd CD (southwest WA) and Dan Newhouse in the 4th CD (Columbia Basin in eastern WA).

    Of course lines for both districts ARE altered, largely due to fact that 3rd has grown in population relative to the rest of the state, while the 4th has declined in relative terms. However, proposed changes to both districts are minimal - certainly compared to situation re: 8th CD.

    Would a partisan supreme court skew the boundaries against the Dems?
    The other way around in WA State.
    Ah, so no incentive to agree early?
    Certainly LESS for the Dems than for the Reps. However, legislators of whatever persuasion are unwilling as a rule to leave redistricting up to the courts, because it's not just a wild card, but surrenders their control of the process. (In WA State the 4 voting redistricting commissioners are each appointed by one of the four legislative caucuses, Sen Ds & Rs, House Ds & Rs.)

    My quasi-educated guess is that they will achieve a compromise before (or rather right at) deadline.
    What's quasi education in this context :)?
    Awareness of what's gone down in past cycles (1991, 2001, 2011) - NOT my first rodeo.

    Plus keeping my ear to the ground . . . until it get full of grasshopers!
    We're relying on you, dont forget that!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,154
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    Are you sure?

    I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London.
    No, the vegan s.r. were welcomed.

    Is it possibly the deep fried Mars bars you have in mind? (not Greggs) - but they are Scots cuisine for the tourists [edited], not the locals.
    I know, but I still think it was I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London. Greggs being amusing in the same way the Midlands would find vagina-steaming treatments in Chelsea amusing.

    I would not mention deep-fried Mars Bars. Though I did slightly enjoy the way OTT version on the Grand Tour.
    Oh, the v.s.rs sold well - much better than the Graun so it wasn't that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC1Gh8CdDYQ

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    I think Starmer is fit to be the next Kinnock.

    People deride Kinnock but he was no Foot.

    I've been concerned he wasn't even that - that Labour might struggle to materially improve their position over 2019 - but now, I think that's virtually certain.

    I can't make head nor tail of that.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,099
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    Are you sure?

    I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London.
    No, the vegan s.r. were welcomed.

    Is it possibly the deep fried Mars bars you have in mind? (not Greggs) - but they are Scots cuisine for the tourists [edited], not the locals.
    I know, but I still think it was I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London. Greggs being amusing in the same way the Midlands would find vagina-steaming treatments in Chelsea amusing.

    I would not mention deep-fried Mars Bars. Though I did slightly enjoy the way OTT version on the Grand Tour.
    Oh, the v.s.rs sold well - much better than the Graun so it wasn't that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC1Gh8CdDYQ

    Is still think it was presented as a funny, idiosyncratic, 'look at these strange little people', amusing story.
  • Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    I'm not sure outside dining in Glasgow in November is the wisest idea.

    I fear I'll get sunburnt.
  • Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    Are you sure?

    I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London.
    No, the vegan s.r. were welcomed.

    Is it possibly the deep fried Mars bars you have in mind? (not Greggs) - but they are Scots cuisine for the tourists [edited], not the locals.
    I know, but I still think it was I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London. Greggs being amusing in the same way the Midlands would find vagina-steaming treatments in Chelsea amusing.

    I would not mention deep-fried Mars Bars. Though I did slightly enjoy the way OTT version on the Grand Tour.
    Oh, the v.s.rs sold well - much better than the Graun so it wasn't that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC1Gh8CdDYQ

    Vegan sausage rolls were a great hit in our works canteen pre-Covid. Better than the real ones iirc.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Foxy said:

    It does look as if there is a floor effect for some voters, but even so quite a shift in 3 months amongst Tory and Leave voters:

    Who thinks Brexit has been going well this year?

    Con voters: 39% (-12)
    Leave voters: 35% (-10)
    British public: 18% (-7)
    Remain voters: 5% (-3)
    Lab voters: 3% (-2)

    Changes from Jun 21, 2021

    https://t.co/Vc1NkmmAS0 https://t.co/m80O2Itxmg

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1443245367349424130?s=19

    OK, this is at the peak(?) of this crisis. In the same way that the Vax Wars led to a shift to "Brexit is a good idea" which dissipated after a while, some of this is probably temporary.

    Questions are:
    1 What will the numbers be when things settle down?
    2 How does the government respond? Softening Brexit will be politically suicidal, but how does a government stick with a plan that even it's backers think is going badly?
    How do we know that we are at the peak?

    What we do see though is that "sovereignty" is not the be all and end all. It seems that most Con voters and Leave voters were expecting something better.

    Amongst Leave voters only 7% give "very well" as an answer, outnumbered by the 11% who think "very badly".


  • Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    https://chaophraya.co.uk/glasgow/ if you like Thai food
    Thanks.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,282
    MattW said:

    French kicking off about fish, again...

    Seem very keen on 'this FTA says what we say it does', rather than what it actually says. EuCo following French line. The claim about 'exhaustive evidence' seems to be not very credible. Hope that Jersey has sufficient enforcement resources in place.

    Quite vituperative stuff on France 24, all about how retaliation could be done via cutting Electricity connections, blocking traffic on the Chunnel, and by using international students as leverage, and how the British/Jersey move is playing to the Tory Party conference.

    Were this over here, the BBC would be pointing out that the demands are contrary to the FTA and any reaction has to go through the agreed processes.

    French Ministerial statement:

    We understand and share the frustration of our fishermen. We cannot cooperate in confidence with the UK until the deal is honored. We will not hesitate to take retaliatory action, collectively. "

    EU Statement:



    ‘International students’?

    Wtf does that mean? They will stop French students coming to the Uk? Or vice versa?

    And blocking the channel?? That comes close to actual hostility

    The Times reports today that macron is apparently in a ‘dark rage’. He has been publicly and globally humiliated by AUKUS. There must be a risk he will do something actively stupid

  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's been mentioned already, but the contrast could not be more stark.

    Any pro-mask people on here want to defend them?


    Does Parliament require a vaxx passport or negative LFT for entry, including the thousands of support workers?

    The conference seemed to do so:

    https://labour.org.uk/conference/faqs/#COVID
    How does that make any difference at all?

    Are you saying that the vaccinated can't infect the unvaccinated who have tested negative?
    No, but like masks it is a significant partial mitigation. Very little is 100%.
    No, for the vaccinated its not any mitigation whatsoever that they're not going to infect others - which is what the mask is supposedly about.

    You're mitigating against the risk of the unvaccinated infecting others (since they've tested negative) but you've not remotely adjusted the risk of the vaccinated infecting others.

    So the vaccinated wearing masks normally is pure theatre isn't it?
    Not true.

    We know that the risk of a double vaxxed individual catching covid is markedly reduced, and when they do the condition is both shorter in duration and less severe. Together this is probably a reduction of infectivity of perhaps 80%, a figure comparable or better than masking.
    You're missing my point.

    Yes we know the risk of a double-vaxxed individual is markedly reduced, but the double-vaxxed individuals can be infected anyway and can infect the unvaxxed which is supposedly why according to the mask theatre individuals even vaxxed people need to wear a mask.

    So if the mask is to help others why does the people the vaxxed are mingling with the negative reduce the risk of the vaxxed infecting the negative?

    Otherwise why shouldn't the vaxxed never wear masks in the first place?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    I don't know if this, has been commented on already tonight, but it seems that the rise in cases in England in the 10-14 age group seems to be slowing, and I think is about to peek.

    As has been commented on in the passed for days, looking at the date available on the Gov Covid Dashboard, the biggest and sharpest rise has come form the 10-14 age group, at lest in England where we have the age breakdown by 5 year intervals. and there now seems to be some growth in other age groups, much smaller than 10-14 but still growth, which IMHO is probably spill over from having so many 10-14 infected, therefor it is important what is happening to the kids, so I made the table below for myself, (I don't know how well it will come out). but it looks to me as if cases in this age group will pick in the next 2-3 days, and then fall, probably slowly at first, but then more significantly, after which there will be delay of a week or so and then we should see falls in the other age groups.

    dates are days in September, cases are from dashboard, and the daily increases have been calculated by me, both the number and the %

    Date Cases Increases % Increases

    12 669.6
    13 674.2 + 4.6 0.1%
    14 694.3 + 20.1 3.0%
    15 732.3 + 38.0 5.4%
    16 769.5 + 37.2 5.1%
    17 827.6 + 58.1 7.6%
    18 907.6 + 80.0 9.7%
    19 1021.6 +114.0 12.5%
    20 1148.5 +126.9 12.4%
    21 1263.0 +115.5 10.0%
    22 1351.6 + 88.6 7.0%
    23 1427.9 + 76.3 5.6%
    24 1475.2 + 47.3 3.2%

    Sores date: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England
  • MattW said:

    French kicking off about fish, again...

    Seem very keen on 'this FTA says what we say it does', rather than what it actually says. EuCo following French line. The claim about 'exhaustive evidence' seems to be not very credible. Hope that Jersey has sufficient enforcement resources in place.

    Quite vituperative stuff on France 24, all about how retaliation could be done via cutting Electricity connections, blocking traffic on the Chunnel, and by using international students as leverage, and how the British/Jersey move is playing to the Tory Party conference.

    Were this over here, the BBC would be pointing out that the demands are contrary to the FTA and any reaction has to go through the agreed processes.

    French Ministerial statement:

    We understand and share the frustration of our fishermen. We cannot cooperate in confidence with the UK until the deal is honored. We will not hesitate to take retaliatory action, collectively. "

    EU Statement:



    The French smell blood over HGV drivers so are trying to push an advantage.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Leon said:

    MattW said:

    French kicking off about fish, again...

    Seem very keen on 'this FTA says what we say it does', rather than what it actually says. EuCo following French line. The claim about 'exhaustive evidence' seems to be not very credible. Hope that Jersey has sufficient enforcement resources in place.

    Quite vituperative stuff on France 24, all about how retaliation could be done via cutting Electricity connections, blocking traffic on the Chunnel, and by using international students as leverage, and how the British/Jersey move is playing to the Tory Party conference.

    Were this over here, the BBC would be pointing out that the demands are contrary to the FTA and any reaction has to go through the agreed processes.

    French Ministerial statement:

    We understand and share the frustration of our fishermen. We cannot cooperate in confidence with the UK until the deal is honored. We will not hesitate to take retaliatory action, collectively. "

    EU Statement:



    ‘International students’?

    Wtf does that mean? They will stop French students coming to the Uk? Or vice versa?

    And blocking the channel?? That comes close to actual hostility

    The Times reports today that macron is apparently in a ‘dark rage’. He has been publicly and globally humiliated by AUKUS. There must be a risk he will do something actively stupid

    Nah, just handbags until the presidential election.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It does look as if there is a floor effect for some voters, but even so quite a shift in 3 months amongst Tory and Leave voters:

    Who thinks Brexit has been going well this year?

    Con voters: 39% (-12)
    Leave voters: 35% (-10)
    British public: 18% (-7)
    Remain voters: 5% (-3)
    Lab voters: 3% (-2)

    Changes from Jun 21, 2021

    https://t.co/Vc1NkmmAS0 https://t.co/m80O2Itxmg

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1443245367349424130?s=19

    OK, this is at the peak(?) of this crisis. In the same way that the Vax Wars led to a shift to "Brexit is a good idea" which dissipated after a while, some of this is probably temporary.

    Questions are:
    1 What will the numbers be when things settle down?
    2 How does the government respond? Softening Brexit will be politically suicidal, but how does a government stick with a plan that even it's backers think is going badly?
    How do we know that we are at the peak?

    What we do see though is that "sovereignty" is not the be all and end all. It seems that most Con voters and Leave voters were expecting something better.

    Amongst Leave voters only 7% give "very well" as an answer, outnumbered by the 11% who think "very badly".


    I would love to get the details of the 18% who think it's going well. I would like to sell them big, magic things!

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    Are you sure?

    I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London.
    No, the vegan s.r. were welcomed.

    Is it possibly the deep fried Mars bars you have in mind? (not Greggs) - but they are Scots cuisine for the tourists [edited], not the locals.
    I know, but I still think it was I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London. Greggs being amusing in the same way the Midlands would find vagina-steaming treatments in Chelsea amusing.

    I would not mention deep-fried Mars Bars. Though I did slightly enjoy the way OTT version on the Grand Tour.
    Oh, the v.s.rs sold well - much better than the Graun so it wasn't that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC1Gh8CdDYQ

    Vegan sausage rolls were a great hit in our works canteen pre-Covid. Better than the real ones iirc.
    Most sausage rolls contain so little meat that they might as well be vegan.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Leon said:

    Starmer's speech already down to 7th place on the BBC News website, and also replaced by the distressing Everard deets at the top of the Guardian

    This certainly does not feel like Blair in 1994. Kinnock in 1989?

    It's 1st at the moment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    Leon said:

    MattW said:

    French kicking off about fish, again...

    Seem very keen on 'this FTA says what we say it does', rather than what it actually says. EuCo following French line. The claim about 'exhaustive evidence' seems to be not very credible. Hope that Jersey has sufficient enforcement resources in place.

    Quite vituperative stuff on France 24, all about how retaliation could be done via cutting Electricity connections, blocking traffic on the Chunnel, and by using international students as leverage, and how the British/Jersey move is playing to the Tory Party conference.

    Were this over here, the BBC would be pointing out that the demands are contrary to the FTA and any reaction has to go through the agreed processes.

    French Ministerial statement:

    We understand and share the frustration of our fishermen. We cannot cooperate in confidence with the UK until the deal is honored. We will not hesitate to take retaliatory action, collectively. "

    EU Statement:



    ‘International students’?

    Wtf does that mean? They will stop French students coming to the Uk? Or vice versa?

    And blocking the channel?? That comes close to actual hostility

    The Times reports today that macron is apparently in a ‘dark rage’. He has been publicly and globally humiliated by AUKUS. There must be a risk he will do something actively stupid

    I thought the whole problem the government had with the French is that they’re *not* blocking the channel to small boats?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    It does look as if there is a floor effect for some voters, but even so quite a shift in 3 months amongst Tory and Leave voters:

    Who thinks Brexit has been going well this year?

    Con voters: 39% (-12)
    Leave voters: 35% (-10)
    British public: 18% (-7)
    Remain voters: 5% (-3)
    Lab voters: 3% (-2)

    Changes from Jun 21, 2021

    https://t.co/Vc1NkmmAS0 https://t.co/m80O2Itxmg

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1443245367349424130?s=19

    OK, this is at the peak(?) of this crisis. In the same way that the Vax Wars led to a shift to "Brexit is a good idea" which dissipated after a while, some of this is probably temporary.

    Questions are:
    1 What will the numbers be when things settle down?
    2 How does the government respond? Softening Brexit will be politically suicidal, but how does a government stick with a plan that even it's backers think is going badly?
    How do we know that we are at the peak?

    What we do see though is that "sovereignty" is not the be all and end all. It seems that most Con voters and Leave voters were expecting something better.

    Amongst Leave voters only 7% give "very well" as an answer, outnumbered by the 11% who think "very badly".


    I would love to get the details of the 18% who think it's going well. I would like to sell them big, magic things!

    I'd say more significant is the low number saying very well, but sticking with fairly well. Acknowledging, in some fashion, some issues, when people often might pretend perfection.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Leon said:

    Starmer's speech already down to 7th place on the BBC News website, and also replaced by the distressing Everard deets at the top of the Guardian

    This certainly does not feel like Blair in 1994. Kinnock in 1989?

    It's 1st at the moment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
    Eighth. Check out the ‘most read.’
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,282

    Leon said:

    Starmer's speech already down to 7th place on the BBC News website, and also replaced by the distressing Everard deets at the top of the Guardian

    This certainly does not feel like Blair in 1994. Kinnock in 1989?

    It's 1st at the moment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
    Indeed I should have said the main BBC web page. The home screen. Starmer was number 1 for about an hour

    To be fair to him I doubt many speeches do better than that
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's been mentioned already, but the contrast could not be more stark.

    Any pro-mask people on here want to defend them?


    Does Parliament require a vaxx passport or negative LFT for entry, including the thousands of support workers?

    The conference seemed to do so:

    https://labour.org.uk/conference/faqs/#COVID
    How does that make any difference at all?

    Are you saying that the vaccinated can't infect the unvaccinated who have tested negative?
    No, but like masks it is a significant partial mitigation. Very little is 100%.
    No, for the vaccinated its not any mitigation whatsoever that they're not going to infect others - which is what the mask is supposedly about.

    You're mitigating against the risk of the unvaccinated infecting others (since they've tested negative) but you've not remotely adjusted the risk of the vaccinated infecting others.

    So the vaccinated wearing masks normally is pure theatre isn't it?
    Not true.

    We know that the risk of a double vaxxed individual catching covid is markedly reduced, and when they do the condition is both shorter in duration and less severe. Together this is probably a reduction of infectivity of perhaps 80%, a figure comparable or better than masking.
    You're missing my point.

    Yes we know the risk of a double-vaxxed individual is markedly reduced, but the double-vaxxed individuals can be infected anyway and can infect the unvaxxed which is supposedly why according to the mask theatre individuals even vaxxed people need to wear a mask.

    So if the mask is to help others why does the people the vaxxed are mingling with the negative reduce the risk of the vaxxed infecting the negative?

    Otherwise why shouldn't the vaxxed never wear masks in the first place?
    It really is simple.

    Double vaxxed people catch it less often, thereby reducing the risk to others. They get it for shorter periods, so are less risk to others, and are have milder symptoms, so less likely to transmit (less sneezing, coughing etc).

    If you cannot understand that, then I cannot explain it to you further.
  • Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    It looks like the Italian place on West George Street is closed. That's a shame.
    I did Roganos a while back, but that is shut for the rest of the year.
    There is this chain called Greggs which has bistro tables outside. The vegan sausage rolls are particularly admired by the food writers.
    Are you sure?

    I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London.
    No, the vegan s.r. were welcomed.

    Is it possibly the deep fried Mars bars you have in mind? (not Greggs) - but they are Scots cuisine for the tourists [edited], not the locals.
    I know, but I still think it was I think that was mainly London media wazzocks looking for a line they thought humorous about not-London. Greggs being amusing in the same way the Midlands would find vagina-steaming treatments in Chelsea amusing.

    I would not mention deep-fried Mars Bars. Though I did slightly enjoy the way OTT version on the Grand Tour.
    Oh, the v.s.rs sold well - much better than the Graun so it wasn't that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC1Gh8CdDYQ

    Vegan sausage rolls were a great hit in our works canteen pre-Covid. Better than the real ones iirc.
    Ah! Vegan sausage rolls! Haven't had one since I was in Aberdeen a couple of weeks before the first lockdown.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    Trust you to lower the tone, Sunil!
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's been mentioned already, but the contrast could not be more stark.

    Any pro-mask people on here want to defend them?


    Does Parliament require a vaxx passport or negative LFT for entry, including the thousands of support workers?

    The conference seemed to do so:

    https://labour.org.uk/conference/faqs/#COVID
    How does that make any difference at all?

    Are you saying that the vaccinated can't infect the unvaccinated who have tested negative?
    No, but like masks it is a significant partial mitigation. Very little is 100%.
    No, for the vaccinated its not any mitigation whatsoever that they're not going to infect others - which is what the mask is supposedly about.

    You're mitigating against the risk of the unvaccinated infecting others (since they've tested negative) but you've not remotely adjusted the risk of the vaccinated infecting others.

    So the vaccinated wearing masks normally is pure theatre isn't it?
    Not true.

    We know that the risk of a double vaxxed individual catching covid is markedly reduced, and when they do the condition is both shorter in duration and less severe. Together this is probably a reduction of infectivity of perhaps 80%, a figure comparable or better than masking.
    You're missing my point.

    Yes we know the risk of a double-vaxxed individual is markedly reduced, but the double-vaxxed individuals can be infected anyway and can infect the unvaxxed which is supposedly why according to the mask theatre individuals even vaxxed people need to wear a mask.

    So if the mask is to help others why does the people the vaxxed are mingling with the negative reduce the risk of the vaxxed infecting the negative?

    Otherwise why shouldn't the vaxxed never wear masks in the first place?
    It really is simple.

    Double vaxxed people catch it less often, thereby reducing the risk to others. They get it for shorter periods, so are less risk to others, and are have milder symptoms, so less likely to transmit (less sneezing, coughing etc).

    If you cannot understand that, then I cannot explain it to you further.
    The question isn't why double-vaxxed people are at less risk . . . I 100% agree that the vaccinated are low risk which is why as a double-vaxxed individual I don't wear a mask. However these people while being double-vaxxed do normally every Wednesday.

    So the question is why double-vaxxed people are so high risk to others they supposedly need to wear masks while in the Commons?

    But they're so low risk to others they're not required to wear masks while around the unvaccinated who aren't infected?

    🤦‍♂️
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's been mentioned already, but the contrast could not be more stark.

    Any pro-mask people on here want to defend them?


    Does Parliament require a vaxx passport or negative LFT for entry, including the thousands of support workers?

    The conference seemed to do so:

    https://labour.org.uk/conference/faqs/#COVID
    How does that make any difference at all?

    Are you saying that the vaccinated can't infect the unvaccinated who have tested negative?
    No, but like masks it is a significant partial mitigation. Very little is 100%.
    No, for the vaccinated its not any mitigation whatsoever that they're not going to infect others - which is what the mask is supposedly about.

    You're mitigating against the risk of the unvaccinated infecting others (since they've tested negative) but you've not remotely adjusted the risk of the vaccinated infecting others.

    So the vaccinated wearing masks normally is pure theatre isn't it?
    Not true.

    We know that the risk of a double vaxxed individual catching covid is markedly reduced, and when they do the condition is both shorter in duration and less severe. Together this is probably a reduction of infectivity of perhaps 80%, a figure comparable or better than masking.
    You're missing my point.

    Yes we know the risk of a double-vaxxed individual is markedly reduced, but the double-vaxxed individuals can be infected anyway and can infect the unvaxxed which is supposedly why according to the mask theatre individuals even vaxxed people need to wear a mask.

    So if the mask is to help others why does the people the vaxxed are mingling with the negative reduce the risk of the vaxxed infecting the negative?

    Otherwise why shouldn't the vaxxed never wear masks in the first place?
    It really is simple.

    Double vaxxed people catch it less often, thereby reducing the risk to others. They get it for shorter periods, so are less risk to others, and are have milder symptoms, so less likely to transmit (less sneezing, coughing etc).

    If you cannot understand that, then I cannot explain it to you further.
    My point is, isn't it convenient that that's the point when mask wearing becomes unnecessary?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,282
    ydoethur said:

    Trust you to lower the tone, Sunil!
    To be fair, by his own admission, Sunil has seen even less Beaver than the River Avon these last 400 years
  • Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Trust you to lower the tone, Sunil!
    To be fair, by his own admission, Sunil has seen even less Beaver than the River Avon these last 400 years
    That's just fake news! Merely TSE-ite propaganda!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    edited September 2021
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Look North did a tour of filling stations in Barnsley. Most fully stocked with no queues. Hopefully we are seeing the back of this nonsense.

    I drove for an hour last night without finding a petrol station that was open, and another hour this morning before queuing for 40 mins to fill up.

    Very thoughtlessly I made myself a self service Costa Hot Chocolate before I left the shop. It only dawned on me as I was walking out how annoying that must be for the 50 odd cars behind me... so I tried to cover up the cup!
    As I was humming along smugly in my EV on the way to the IoW, about 2/3 of the service stations that I passed had no fuel.
    That's actually a really good idea for a tax: a tax on smugness. The higher your smugness quota, the more tax you pay... ;)
    You trying to bankrupt me?

    I'm asset poor but rich in smug.
    Don't worry, you'll still be on base rate smug tax - Rees-Mogg will pay enough for most of us.....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    ITV leading with Sarah Everard. Presumably SKS would actually approve of that (and I mean that sincerely).

    The mother's statement is heart-breaking. Hard to read. A reminder - if we needed it - that more than one life is destroyed when a murder is committed.

    I find it hard to believe that this man went from indecent exposure to calculated rapist and killer in a few days. If the police are not looking at unsolved rapes, sexual assaults and murders in the places where he lived and worked to see if he did this before, then they bloody well ought to be.

    The people who knew about his flashing, who knew his nickname was "The Rapist" ought to be asking themselves why they did not say anything, why they did not raise the alarm, why they did not "blow the whistle". And if they did, those who ignored them or did not take it seriously need to be asking themselves some hard questions too.

    The clues were there. They were ignored. And a young woman is dead because of that.
    Presumably they now have his DNA.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    edited September 2021
    Aside from Northern Ireland and SPS-induced border pedantry (two big ifs) I think Brexit is going ok.

    Ending free movement was always going to lead to some transitional frictions as our labour market adjusts but they're ones we'll work through.

    I'd like the TCA to be more ambitious in UK-EU cooperation but since the EU is still clearly in "bring the UK to heel" mode we're some time away from that, and Northern Ireland needs fixing first.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's been mentioned already, but the contrast could not be more stark.

    Any pro-mask people on here want to defend them?


    Does Parliament require a vaxx passport or negative LFT for entry, including the thousands of support workers?

    The conference seemed to do so:

    https://labour.org.uk/conference/faqs/#COVID
    How does that make any difference at all?

    Are you saying that the vaccinated can't infect the unvaccinated who have tested negative?
    No, but like masks it is a significant partial mitigation. Very little is 100%.
    No, for the vaccinated its not any mitigation whatsoever that they're not going to infect others - which is what the mask is supposedly about.

    You're mitigating against the risk of the unvaccinated infecting others (since they've tested negative) but you've not remotely adjusted the risk of the vaccinated infecting others.

    So the vaccinated wearing masks normally is pure theatre isn't it?
    Not true.

    We know that the risk of a double vaxxed individual catching covid is markedly reduced, and when they do the condition is both shorter in duration and less severe. Together this is probably a reduction of infectivity of perhaps 80%, a figure comparable or better than masking.
    You're missing my point.

    Yes we know the risk of a double-vaxxed individual is markedly reduced, but the double-vaxxed individuals can be infected anyway and can infect the unvaxxed which is supposedly why according to the mask theatre individuals even vaxxed people need to wear a mask.

    So if the mask is to help others why does the people the vaxxed are mingling with the negative reduce the risk of the vaxxed infecting the negative?

    Otherwise why shouldn't the vaxxed never wear masks in the first place?
    It really is simple.

    Double vaxxed people catch it less often, thereby reducing the risk to others. They get it for shorter periods, so are less risk to others, and are have milder symptoms, so less likely to transmit (less sneezing, coughing etc).

    If you cannot understand that, then I cannot explain it to you further.
    The question isn't why double-vaxxed people are at less risk . . . I 100% agree that the vaccinated are low risk which is why as a double-vaxxed individual I don't wear a mask. However these people while being double-vaxxed do normally every Wednesday.

    So the question is why double-vaxxed people are so high risk to others they supposedly need to wear masks while in the Commons?

    But they're so low risk to others they're not required to wear masks while around the unvaccinated who aren't infected?

    🤦‍♂️
    Because the effects are compounded. Masks reduce the risk of transmission even further.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,590
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Look North did a tour of filling stations in Barnsley. Most fully stocked with no queues. Hopefully we are seeing the back of this nonsense.

    I drove for an hour last night without finding a petrol station that was open, and another hour this morning before queuing for 40 mins to fill up.

    Very thoughtlessly I made myself a self service Costa Hot Chocolate before I left the shop. It only dawned on me as I was walking out how annoying that must be for the 50 odd cars behind me... so I tried to cover up the cup!
    As I was humming along smugly in my EV on the way to the IoW, about 2/3 of the service stations that I passed had no fuel.
    Two thirds of fuel stations on my route home were closed. Fortunately after topping up yesterday I have enough to last me well into next week.
    Filled up at Tesco in Yate. It looks like we are out of the woods.

    We do need a campaign photo of a hi-vized Johnson in the driver's seat of a petrol tanker to demonstrate it is fully over and just who personally saved the day.
  • Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    ITV leading with Sarah Everard. Presumably SKS would actually approve of that (and I mean that sincerely).

    The mother's statement is heart-breaking. Hard to read. A reminder - if we needed it - that more than one life is destroyed when a murder is committed.

    I find it hard to believe that this man went from indecent exposure to calculated rapist and killer in a few days. If the police are not looking at unsolved rapes, sexual assaults and murders in the places where he lived and worked to see if he did this before, then they bloody well ought to be.

    The people who knew about his flashing, who knew his nickname was "The Rapist" ought to be asking themselves why they did not say anything, why they did not raise the alarm, why they did not "blow the whistle". And if they did, those who ignored them or did not take it seriously need to be asking themselves some hard questions too.

    The clues were there. They were ignored. And a young woman is dead because of that.
    Any policeman (or women) who had such concerns would have come up against an institutional culture and structure that didn't make it worth their while to do so, with a risk-reward ratio that meant they'd get a lot of grief from colleagues (called a scab?) and their seniors would probably take no action anyway - and possibly mark their card. And, besides, they don't really know for sure anyway, do they? It's just rumours and hearsay.

    So, they did nothing. The Met needs to be asking itself some very serious questions about this and making the results public.

    It will do no such thing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited September 2021

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Look North did a tour of filling stations in Barnsley. Most fully stocked with no queues. Hopefully we are seeing the back of this nonsense.

    I drove for an hour last night without finding a petrol station that was open, and another hour this morning before queuing for 40 mins to fill up.

    Very thoughtlessly I made myself a self service Costa Hot Chocolate before I left the shop. It only dawned on me as I was walking out how annoying that must be for the 50 odd cars behind me... so I tried to cover up the cup!
    As I was humming along smugly in my EV on the way to the IoW, about 2/3 of the service stations that I passed had no fuel.
    Two thirds of fuel stations on my route home were closed. Fortunately after topping up yesterday I have enough to last me well into next week.
    Filled up at Tesco in Yate. It looks like we are out of the woods.

    We do need a campaign photo of a hi-vized Johnson in the driver's seat of a petrol tanker to demonstrate it is fully over and just who personally saved the day.
    We really fucking don’t. I don’t want him in control of a petrol tanker.

    Nuclear weapons are bad enough and at least somebody else actually presses the button.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,590
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Look North did a tour of filling stations in Barnsley. Most fully stocked with no queues. Hopefully we are seeing the back of this nonsense.

    I drove for an hour last night without finding a petrol station that was open, and another hour this morning before queuing for 40 mins to fill up.

    Very thoughtlessly I made myself a self service Costa Hot Chocolate before I left the shop. It only dawned on me as I was walking out how annoying that must be for the 50 odd cars behind me... so I tried to cover up the cup!
    Yeah, Blair felt like a winner from the start. Tho of course his circumstances were entirely different, and the 92-97 Tory government was loathed. And Boris is much more formidable, on multiple levels, than Major

    IF I was forced to bet now I would predict a narrow Tory win in 2024, then the wheels will come off HMG, also Sturgeon will retire, and Labour will get a narrow majority (with a few more Scottish seats) in about 2028

    Lord knows who will be their leader by then
    Blair had the massive advantage that the heavy lifting had been done by Kinnock and Smith. Labour already had a comfy lead and Blair's job was to not stuff it up. Which he did with brutal aplomb. Starmer, like Smith, is imaginable as PM in a way Kinnock wasn't. But Operation Dynorod is only part-finished.

    Agree that the centre of the needle is a narrow Conservative win... and that makes 2024 more likely. But the range bar then goes from comfy Conservative to Coalition of chaos.

    On top of that, I don't see BoJo having the guile to make a small majority work like Major did. It was ugly, but he survived five years. And if BoJo goes, the magic goes as well.
    Yep. And also, after another probable but slender win in 2024, the Tories will have been in power for a decade and a half, and if they get to 2028 - a full 18 years. People will be mightily sick of them

    If Labour can somehow recover in Scotland a landslide Labour win would be quite likely - in 2028 (or whenever the next but one GE occurs)
    Labour are finished in Scotland.

    Surely Johnson's incompetent half-wittery will be grating rather than hilarious in the face of stagflation, which is why I am not discounting a hung-parliamnt despite Starmer's dreariness.
  • GB number plates no longer valid.

    If you are driving abroad then your GB plates have to be replaced by UK plates.

    At first encounter, I imagined this was the EU playing silly buggers over Brexit but it turns out the government has told the UN we want to be called UK not GB. I had noticed and wondered why so many ministers kept saying UK instead of British recently, and apparently it is part of some grand scheme to do something or other.

    A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Changing the national identifier from GB to UK symbolises our unity as a nation and is part of a wider move towards using the UK signifier across government.

    "We notified the UN of our intention to make these changes in July, and have been working with the sector to implement the change."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265
  • A question for the gamblers of the site - earlier today I was having a conversation with someone IRL about football and the conversation moved onto gambling and he mentions a website he uses which supposedly "guarantees" you win money from gambling, though bookies could ultimately ban you for it apparently (which is what many here have said before about how they deal with successful gamblers).

    The site is called Oddmonkey and apparently it gives "guaranteed" bet tips by giving bets (often with 'reload' offers) and a lay off from that bet with Betfair that combines to winning money. And apparently Acca and Expected Value bets that don't guarantee a return but have an expected profit (so like tips here).

    Has anyone ever heard of this before and anyone have any experience of it? I rather feel like if something sounds too good to be true it usually is - though I know many people here do well from gambling so sounds like a similar concept?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,590
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Look North did a tour of filling stations in Barnsley. Most fully stocked with no queues. Hopefully we are seeing the back of this nonsense.

    I drove for an hour last night without finding a petrol station that was open, and another hour this morning before queuing for 40 mins to fill up.

    Very thoughtlessly I made myself a self service Costa Hot Chocolate before I left the shop. It only dawned on me as I was walking out how annoying that must be for the 50 odd cars behind me... so I tried to cover up the cup!
    As I was humming along smugly in my EV on the way to the IoW, about 2/3 of the service stations that I passed had no fuel.
    Two thirds of fuel stations on my route home were closed. Fortunately after topping up yesterday I have enough to last me well into next week.
    Filled up at Tesco in Yate. It looks like we are out of the woods.

    We do need a campaign photo of a hi-vized Johnson in the driver's seat of a petrol tanker to demonstrate it is fully over and just who personally saved the day.
    We really fucking don’t. I don’t want him in control of a petrol tanker.

    Nuclear weapons are bad enough and at least somebody else actually presses the button.
    I wasn't suggesting he drive it. Just look gorgeous in his hi-viz for the fanbois.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's been mentioned already, but the contrast could not be more stark.

    Any pro-mask people on here want to defend them?


    Does Parliament require a vaxx passport or negative LFT for entry, including the thousands of support workers?

    The conference seemed to do so:

    https://labour.org.uk/conference/faqs/#COVID
    How does that make any difference at all?

    Are you saying that the vaccinated can't infect the unvaccinated who have tested negative?
    No, but like masks it is a significant partial mitigation. Very little is 100%.
    No, for the vaccinated its not any mitigation whatsoever that they're not going to infect others - which is what the mask is supposedly about.

    You're mitigating against the risk of the unvaccinated infecting others (since they've tested negative) but you've not remotely adjusted the risk of the vaccinated infecting others.

    So the vaccinated wearing masks normally is pure theatre isn't it?
    Not true.

    We know that the risk of a double vaxxed individual catching covid is markedly reduced, and when they do the condition is both shorter in duration and less severe. Together this is probably a reduction of infectivity of perhaps 80%, a figure comparable or better than masking.
    You're missing my point.

    Yes we know the risk of a double-vaxxed individual is markedly reduced, but the double-vaxxed individuals can be infected anyway and can infect the unvaxxed which is supposedly why according to the mask theatre individuals even vaxxed people need to wear a mask.

    So if the mask is to help others why does the people the vaxxed are mingling with the negative reduce the risk of the vaxxed infecting the negative?

    Otherwise why shouldn't the vaxxed never wear masks in the first place?
    It really is simple.

    Double vaxxed people catch it less often, thereby reducing the risk to others. They get it for shorter periods, so are less risk to others, and are have milder symptoms, so less likely to transmit (less sneezing, coughing etc).

    If you cannot understand that, then I cannot explain it to you further.
    The question isn't why double-vaxxed people are at less risk . . . I 100% agree that the vaccinated are low risk which is why as a double-vaxxed individual I don't wear a mask. However these people while being double-vaxxed do normally every Wednesday.

    So the question is why double-vaxxed people are so high risk to others they supposedly need to wear masks while in the Commons?

    But they're so low risk to others they're not required to wear masks while around the unvaccinated who aren't infected?

    🤦‍♂️
    Because the effects are compounded. Masks reduce the risk of transmission even further.
    Yes but then why are masks needed while in Parliament - but not needed around uninfected negative tested people they could infect?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    A question for the gamblers of the site - earlier today I was having a conversation with someone IRL about football and the conversation moved onto gambling and he mentions a website he uses which supposedly "guarantees" you win money from gambling, though bookies could ultimately ban you for it apparently (which is what many here have said before about how they deal with successful gamblers).

    The site is called Oddmonkey and apparently it gives "guaranteed" bet tips by giving bets (often with 'reload' offers) and a lay off from that bet with Betfair that combines to winning money. And apparently Acca and Expected Value bets that don't guarantee a return but have an expected profit (so like tips here).

    Has anyone ever heard of this before and anyone have any experience of it? I rather feel like if something sounds too good to be true it usually is - though I know many people here do well from gambling so sounds like a similar concept?

    Is it backing bookie special offers then laying them back on Betfair? Good way for the people at OddsMonkey to get on the special offers at a tick less than the bookie price without having to open up the accounts I reckon
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Of course, it could be that this thread is entirely in accord with the previous one.

    Starmer's speech has done nothing to alter the challenge that Labour still has an almost impossible position.

    But hey, the neo-Blairites have had a nice day out. Bless.
  • Taz said:
    It was this bit

    Jowell claimed that “major” Premier League clubs pressurised the league to block a deal that would have made Newcastle extraordinarily wealthy. “We say that this lobby and the pressure distorted the Premier League’s fair and objective application of the rules,” he said.

    There was also the role of beIN Sports in opposing the takeover, in part because of Qatar’s then pronounced regional rivalry with Saudi and, most pertinently, its allegations of broadcast piracy against the KSA. “At the time the Premier League was reaching its decision, beIN was in the midst of negotiations with the Premier League for another three years’ [overseas] rights deal,” said Jowell. “It was very publicly reported at the time that the beIN media group actively lobbied the Premier League against the takeover of Newcastle.”


    oh and this.

    Although determining the degree of separation between KSA and PIF is a question of legal semantics, the statement that KSA would not be subjected to the league’s owners’ and directors’ test is significant. This dictates that the alleged role of Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, in the murder of the Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018 would not feature in the decision-making process.

    As I said last year, murdering a journalist is fine, violating the TV rights of the PL is a big no no for the PL.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's been mentioned already, but the contrast could not be more stark.

    Any pro-mask people on here want to defend them?


    Does Parliament require a vaxx passport or negative LFT for entry, including the thousands of support workers?

    The conference seemed to do so:

    https://labour.org.uk/conference/faqs/#COVID
    How does that make any difference at all?

    Are you saying that the vaccinated can't infect the unvaccinated who have tested negative?
    No, but like masks it is a significant partial mitigation. Very little is 100%.
    No, for the vaccinated its not any mitigation whatsoever that they're not going to infect others - which is what the mask is supposedly about.

    You're mitigating against the risk of the unvaccinated infecting others (since they've tested negative) but you've not remotely adjusted the risk of the vaccinated infecting others.

    So the vaccinated wearing masks normally is pure theatre isn't it?
    Not true.

    We know that the risk of a double vaxxed individual catching covid is markedly reduced, and when they do the condition is both shorter in duration and less severe. Together this is probably a reduction of infectivity of perhaps 80%, a figure comparable or better than masking.
    You're missing my point.

    Yes we know the risk of a double-vaxxed individual is markedly reduced, but the double-vaxxed individuals can be infected anyway and can infect the unvaxxed which is supposedly why according to the mask theatre individuals even vaxxed people need to wear a mask.

    So if the mask is to help others why does the people the vaxxed are mingling with the negative reduce the risk of the vaxxed infecting the negative?

    Otherwise why shouldn't the vaxxed never wear masks in the first place?
    It really is simple.

    Double vaxxed people catch it less often, thereby reducing the risk to others. They get it for shorter periods, so are less risk to others, and are have milder symptoms, so less likely to transmit (less sneezing, coughing etc).

    If you cannot understand that, then I cannot explain it to you further.
    The question isn't why double-vaxxed people are at less risk . . . I 100% agree that the vaccinated are low risk which is why as a double-vaxxed individual I don't wear a mask. However these people while being double-vaxxed do normally every Wednesday.

    So the question is why double-vaxxed people are so high risk to others they supposedly need to wear masks while in the Commons?

    But they're so low risk to others they're not required to wear masks while around the unvaccinated who aren't infected?

    🤦‍♂️
    Because the effects are compounded. Masks reduce the risk of transmission even further.
    Yes but then why are masks needed while in Parliament - but not needed around uninfected negative tested people they could infect?
    Swiss cheese model. Lots of different mitigation’s. In this case I strongly suspect it’s political bollocks in the house, but there is sense behind multiple layers of mitigation.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    GB number plates no longer valid.

    If you are driving abroad then your GB plates have to be replaced by UK plates.

    At first encounter, I imagined this was the EU playing silly buggers over Brexit but it turns out the government has told the UN we want to be called UK not GB. I had noticed and wondered why so many ministers kept saying UK instead of British recently, and apparently it is part of some grand scheme to do something or other.

    A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Changing the national identifier from GB to UK symbolises our unity as a nation and is part of a wider move towards using the UK signifier across government.

    "We notified the UN of our intention to make these changes in July, and have been working with the sector to implement the change."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265

    Of course, we'll have to change back when NI buggers off.

    And if Scotland goes too, we'll be left with the rather unappealling EW...........
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    ITV leading with Sarah Everard. Presumably SKS would actually approve of that (and I mean that sincerely).

    The mother's statement is heart-breaking. Hard to read. A reminder - if we needed it - that more than one life is destroyed when a murder is committed.

    I find it hard to believe that this man went from indecent exposure to calculated rapist and killer in a few days. If the police are not looking at unsolved rapes, sexual assaults and murders in the places where he lived and worked to see if he did this before, then they bloody well ought to be.

    The people who knew about his flashing, who knew his nickname was "The Rapist" ought to be asking themselves why they did not say anything, why they did not raise the alarm, why they did not "blow the whistle". And if they did, those who ignored them or did not take it seriously need to be asking themselves some hard questions too.

    The clues were there. They were ignored. And a young woman is dead because of that.
    Any policeman (or women) who had such concerns would have come up against an institutional culture and structure that didn't make it worth their while to do so, with a risk-reward ratio that meant they'd get a lot of grief from colleagues (called a scab?) and their seniors would probably take no action anyway - and possibly mark their card. And, besides, they don't really know for sure anyway, do they? It's just rumours and hearsay.

    So, they did nothing. The Met needs to be asking itself some very serious questions about this and making the results public.

    It will do no such thing.
    Of course not. Look at who leads it. Rotten from the head down. Look at the statement from a DCI on the investigation trying to distance the Met from Couzens, saying he should not have been a policeman. Yes, well - who employed him and vetted him and gave him a weapon to carry. It is all so familiar to me - the "no true policeman/Scotsman/banker" fallacy gets trotted out whenever something bad happens, usually accompanied by that old evergreen - "one or two rotten apples".

    The whole bloody organization needs tearing down and starting again. It's my Defund the Met campaign.

    I might even have voted for Priti Patel if she had had the balls to give the police the kicking it so richly deserves. Instead she's extended Cressida's term.

    And so we will be bathed in a torrent of cliches and bathos when he's finally sentenced tomorrow with fuck all of substance being done.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    It's been mentioned already, but the contrast could not be more stark.

    Any pro-mask people on here want to defend them?


    Does Parliament require a vaxx passport or negative LFT for entry, including the thousands of support workers?

    The conference seemed to do so:

    https://labour.org.uk/conference/faqs/#COVID
    How does that make any difference at all?

    Are you saying that the vaccinated can't infect the unvaccinated who have tested negative?
    No, but like masks it is a significant partial mitigation. Very little is 100%.
    No, for the vaccinated its not any mitigation whatsoever that they're not going to infect others - which is what the mask is supposedly about.

    You're mitigating against the risk of the unvaccinated infecting others (since they've tested negative) but you've not remotely adjusted the risk of the vaccinated infecting others.

    So the vaccinated wearing masks normally is pure theatre isn't it?
    Not true.

    We know that the risk of a double vaxxed individual catching covid is markedly reduced, and when they do the condition is both shorter in duration and less severe. Together this is probably a reduction of infectivity of perhaps 80%, a figure comparable or better than masking.
    You're missing my point.

    Yes we know the risk of a double-vaxxed individual is markedly reduced, but the double-vaxxed individuals can be infected anyway and can infect the unvaxxed which is supposedly why according to the mask theatre individuals even vaxxed people need to wear a mask.

    So if the mask is to help others why does the people the vaxxed are mingling with the negative reduce the risk of the vaxxed infecting the negative?

    Otherwise why shouldn't the vaxxed never wear masks in the first place?
    It really is simple.

    Double vaxxed people catch it less often, thereby reducing the risk to others. They get it for shorter periods, so are less risk to others, and are have milder symptoms, so less likely to transmit (less sneezing, coughing etc).

    If you cannot understand that, then I cannot explain it to you further.
    The question isn't why double-vaxxed people are at less risk . . . I 100% agree that the vaccinated are low risk which is why as a double-vaxxed individual I don't wear a mask. However these people while being double-vaxxed do normally every Wednesday.

    So the question is why double-vaxxed people are so high risk to others they supposedly need to wear masks while in the Commons?

    But they're so low risk to others they're not required to wear masks while around the unvaccinated who aren't infected?

    🤦‍♂️
    Because the effects are compounded. Masks reduce the risk of transmission even further.
    Yes but then why are masks needed while in Parliament - but not needed around uninfected negative tested people they could infect?
    Any situation needs risk assessment on its merits. Different situations have different risk and different mitigations.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,590

    Aside from Northern Ireland and SPS-induced border pedantry (two big ifs) I think Brexit is going ok.

    Ending free movement was always going to lead to some transitional frictions as our labour market adjusts but they're ones we'll work through.

    I'd like the TCA to be more ambitious in UK-EU cooperation but since the EU is still clearly in "bring the UK to heel" mode we're some time away from that, and Northern Ireland needs fixing first.

    Well I think Brexit is going badly.

    What a pair of Lord Astors we are, eh?
  • GB number plates no longer valid.

    If you are driving abroad then your GB plates have to be replaced by UK plates.

    At first encounter, I imagined this was the EU playing silly buggers over Brexit but it turns out the government has told the UN we want to be called UK not GB. I had noticed and wondered why so many ministers kept saying UK instead of British recently, and apparently it is part of some grand scheme to do something or other.

    A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Changing the national identifier from GB to UK symbolises our unity as a nation and is part of a wider move towards using the UK signifier across government.

    "We notified the UN of our intention to make these changes in July, and have been working with the sector to implement the change."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265

    Of course, we'll have to change back when NI buggers off.

    And if Scotland goes too, we'll be left with the rather unappealling EW...........
    Nah, we'll be FUK.

    Former United Kingdom.

    There's precedent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute
  • isam said:

    A question for the gamblers of the site - earlier today I was having a conversation with someone IRL about football and the conversation moved onto gambling and he mentions a website he uses which supposedly "guarantees" you win money from gambling, though bookies could ultimately ban you for it apparently (which is what many here have said before about how they deal with successful gamblers).

    The site is called Oddmonkey and apparently it gives "guaranteed" bet tips by giving bets (often with 'reload' offers) and a lay off from that bet with Betfair that combines to winning money. And apparently Acca and Expected Value bets that don't guarantee a return but have an expected profit (so like tips here).

    Has anyone ever heard of this before and anyone have any experience of it? I rather feel like if something sounds too good to be true it usually is - though I know many people here do well from gambling so sounds like a similar concept?

    Is it backing bookie special offers then laying them back on Betfair? Good way for the people at OddsMonkey to get on the special offers at a tick less than the bookie price without having to open up the accounts I reckon
    Yes apparently its mainly bookies offers with instructions to back the bet and then lay it off at Betfair for a profit. With instructions on how much to back and lay for.

    £18 a month subscription apparently for the site. Does that sound fishy or sensible?
  • Anywhere I can watch the first couple of hours of election night 2019 - obv I'm no fan of Boris et al (understatement) but seeing mcdonnell's concession interview early on was very enjoyable...

    I need cheering up ad I'm going to watch mura give my team a lesson tomorrow night :(
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,282

    Taz said:
    It was this bit

    Jowell claimed that “major” Premier League clubs pressurised the league to block a deal that would have made Newcastle extraordinarily wealthy. “We say that this lobby and the pressure distorted the Premier League’s fair and objective application of the rules,” he said.

    There was also the role of beIN Sports in opposing the takeover, in part because of Qatar’s then pronounced regional rivalry with Saudi and, most pertinently, its allegations of broadcast piracy against the KSA. “At the time the Premier League was reaching its decision, beIN was in the midst of negotiations with the Premier League for another three years’ [overseas] rights deal,” said Jowell. “It was very publicly reported at the time that the beIN media group actively lobbied the Premier League against the takeover of Newcastle.”


    oh and this.

    Although determining the degree of separation between KSA and PIF is a question of legal semantics, the statement that KSA would not be subjected to the league’s owners’ and directors’ test is significant. This dictates that the alleged role of Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, in the murder of the Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018 would not feature in the decision-making process.

    As I said last year, murdering a journalist is fine, violating the TV rights of the PL is a big no no for the PL.
    Imagine the money all of the KSA could lavish on Newcastle Utd, if it DID happen

    That would mean ANOTHER huge club in the EPL, turning it into the Super League all by itself. Newcastle-on-Riyadh could probably outspend PSG or City

    So that would not only be a threat to other EPL clubs, it would also be a bigger threat to PSG, Barca, AC Milan, Real, and all the other big but non-English clubs, many of them already struggling
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    GB number plates no longer valid.

    If you are driving abroad then your GB plates have to be replaced by UK plates.

    At first encounter, I imagined this was the EU playing silly buggers over Brexit but it turns out the government has told the UN we want to be called UK not GB. I had noticed and wondered why so many ministers kept saying UK instead of British recently, and apparently it is part of some grand scheme to do something or other.

    A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Changing the national identifier from GB to UK symbolises our unity as a nation and is part of a wider move towards using the UK signifier across government.

    "We notified the UN of our intention to make these changes in July, and have been working with the sector to implement the change."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265

    Of course, we'll have to change back when NI buggers off.

    And if Scotland goes too, we'll be left with the rather unappealling EW...........
    Nah, we can still be the United Kingdom. I mean there’s Wessex, and Mercia and cent...
  • Just upped my recent bet on Labour poll lead by the end of the year
  • Anywhere I can watch the first couple of hours of election night 2019 - obv I'm no fan of Boris et al (understatement) but seeing mcdonnell's concession interview early on was very enjoyable...

    I need cheering up ad I'm going to watch mura give my team a lesson tomorrow night :(

    I've never watched it, but if you want extra laughs this is apparently a very good one to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3RQWEziIKw
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    GB number plates no longer valid.

    If you are driving abroad then your GB plates have to be replaced by UK plates.

    At first encounter, I imagined this was the EU playing silly buggers over Brexit but it turns out the government has told the UN we want to be called UK not GB. I had noticed and wondered why so many ministers kept saying UK instead of British recently, and apparently it is part of some grand scheme to do something or other.

    A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Changing the national identifier from GB to UK symbolises our unity as a nation and is part of a wider move towards using the UK signifier across government.

    "We notified the UN of our intention to make these changes in July, and have been working with the sector to implement the change."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265

    Of course, we'll have to change back when NI buggers off.

    And if Scotland goes too, we'll be left with the rather unappealling EW...........
    Nah, we'll be FUK.

    Former United Kingdom.

    There's precedent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute
    Surely we are the UK, until Scotland buggers off? Neither Wales nor NI are kingdoms.
  • A question for the gamblers of the site - earlier today I was having a conversation with someone IRL about football and the conversation moved onto gambling and he mentions a website he uses which supposedly "guarantees" you win money from gambling, though bookies could ultimately ban you for it apparently (which is what many here have said before about how they deal with successful gamblers).

    The site is called Oddmonkey and apparently it gives "guaranteed" bet tips by giving bets (often with 'reload' offers) and a lay off from that bet with Betfair that combines to winning money. And apparently Acca and Expected Value bets that don't guarantee a return but have an expected profit (so like tips here).

    Has anyone ever heard of this before and anyone have any experience of it? I rather feel like if something sounds too good to be true it usually is - though I know many people here do well from gambling so sounds like a similar concept?

    I've not seen the site but from what you say it sounds like they might be talking about arbitrage (or "arbs") where you can take a price from a bookmaker and immediately lay off at a shorter price on Betfair. Arbs do appear from time to time, and especially when combined with bookmakers' special offers, but good luck getting on and keeping your account unrestricted. Also good luck laying off on Betfair because if an arb exists for you then it also exists for everyone else so the market will quickly adjust.

    Arbs aside, the rest of it about acca and expected value just sounds like they are selling tips.

    So I'd beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

    That said, there are professional punters and there are firms that, often with the aid of computers, do make fortunes from betting, including on the exchanges. Well-known examples include the owners of Brighton and Brentford football clubs. One is even owned by Smarkets, the new firm that puts up many of the political betting markets tipped on pb.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    edited September 2021
    Leon said:

    Taz said:
    It was this bit

    Jowell claimed that “major” Premier League clubs pressurised the league to block a deal that would have made Newcastle extraordinarily wealthy. “We say that this lobby and the pressure distorted the Premier League’s fair and objective application of the rules,” he said.

    There was also the role of beIN Sports in opposing the takeover, in part because of Qatar’s then pronounced regional rivalry with Saudi and, most pertinently, its allegations of broadcast piracy against the KSA. “At the time the Premier League was reaching its decision, beIN was in the midst of negotiations with the Premier League for another three years’ [overseas] rights deal,” said Jowell. “It was very publicly reported at the time that the beIN media group actively lobbied the Premier League against the takeover of Newcastle.”


    oh and this.

    Although determining the degree of separation between KSA and PIF is a question of legal semantics, the statement that KSA would not be subjected to the league’s owners’ and directors’ test is significant. This dictates that the alleged role of Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, in the murder of the Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018 would not feature in the decision-making process.

    As I said last year, murdering a journalist is fine, violating the TV rights of the PL is a big no no for the PL.
    Imagine the money all of the KSA could lavish on Newcastle Utd, if it DID happen

    That would mean ANOTHER huge club in the EPL, turning it into the Super League all by itself. Newcastle-on-Riyadh could probably outspend PSG or City

    So that would not only be a threat to other EPL clubs, it would also be a bigger threat to PSG, Barca, AC Milan, Real, and all the other big but non-English clubs, many of them already struggling
    Bloody Muslims coming over here and buying up our heritage. We must be literally mad etc.

    But realistically this may be another front in the Saudi/Qatar conflict and that may end up very bad for the Premier League.
  • Foxy said:

    GB number plates no longer valid.

    If you are driving abroad then your GB plates have to be replaced by UK plates.

    At first encounter, I imagined this was the EU playing silly buggers over Brexit but it turns out the government has told the UN we want to be called UK not GB. I had noticed and wondered why so many ministers kept saying UK instead of British recently, and apparently it is part of some grand scheme to do something or other.

    A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Changing the national identifier from GB to UK symbolises our unity as a nation and is part of a wider move towards using the UK signifier across government.

    "We notified the UN of our intention to make these changes in July, and have been working with the sector to implement the change."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265

    Of course, we'll have to change back when NI buggers off.

    And if Scotland goes too, we'll be left with the rather unappealling EW...........
    Nah, we'll be FUK.

    Former United Kingdom.

    There's precedent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute
    Surely we are the UK, until Scotland buggers off? Neither Wales nor NI are kingdoms.
    It gets very messy.

    The Union of the Kingdoms predates the Union of the countries.

    IIRC the Nats said they would keep the monarchy in the event of independence.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    A question for the gamblers of the site - earlier today I was having a conversation with someone IRL about football and the conversation moved onto gambling and he mentions a website he uses which supposedly "guarantees" you win money from gambling, though bookies could ultimately ban you for it apparently (which is what many here have said before about how they deal with successful gamblers).

    The site is called Oddmonkey and apparently it gives "guaranteed" bet tips by giving bets (often with 'reload' offers) and a lay off from that bet with Betfair that combines to winning money. And apparently Acca and Expected Value bets that don't guarantee a return but have an expected profit (so like tips here).

    Has anyone ever heard of this before and anyone have any experience of it? I rather feel like if something sounds too good to be true it usually is - though I know many people here do well from gambling so sounds like a similar concept?

    Is it backing bookie special offers then laying them back on Betfair? Good way for the people at OddsMonkey to get on the special offers at a tick less than the bookie price without having to open up the accounts I reckon
    Yes apparently its mainly bookies offers with instructions to back the bet and then lay it off at Betfair for a profit. With instructions on how much to back and lay for.

    £18 a month subscription apparently for the site. Does that sound fishy or sensible?
    I wouldn’t bother. You’d be better off opening the bookie accounts and just backing their special offers

    Seems like what OM are doing is hoovering up the value bets offered to new punters at a fraction under the offer price. So you might as well just keep them
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    edited September 2021

    Any decent restaurant recommendations for central Glasgow?

    Last time I was there I nearly incited a riot after describing the local food as tasting like deep fried shavings from a ped egg.

    You could take Sarah Vine's recommendation of the Ubiquitous Fish? More seriously the Ubiquitous Chip has been providing decent scran in the west end since the 70s and is only a 10 minute cab ride from the centre (call it the U.B. Chip if you want to sound local). The same family also have Stravaigin which is a bit more youth orientated and adventurous, and a bit closer to the centre.

    Edit: checked Stravaigin online and it seems they occasionally have grey squirrel on the menu..
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    EXC: Opinium / Sky News poll shows Keir Starmer’s first in-person conference speech outperformed Boris Johnson’s first conference as leader

    1,330 people shown video of speech clips this afternoon https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1443278089648214024/photo/1
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    🚨BREAKING🚨

    Our snap poll with @SkyNewsBreak on Starmer's speech is out!

    The verdict - Fairly positive.

    % who think he came across as:
    🔴Cares about ordinary people - 68%
    🔴Competent - 62%
    🔴In touch with people’s concerns - 60%
    🔴Strong - 57%
    🔴Interesting - 41% https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1443278145126342656/photo/1
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Foxy said:

    GB number plates no longer valid.

    If you are driving abroad then your GB plates have to be replaced by UK plates.

    At first encounter, I imagined this was the EU playing silly buggers over Brexit but it turns out the government has told the UN we want to be called UK not GB. I had noticed and wondered why so many ministers kept saying UK instead of British recently, and apparently it is part of some grand scheme to do something or other.

    A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Changing the national identifier from GB to UK symbolises our unity as a nation and is part of a wider move towards using the UK signifier across government.

    "We notified the UN of our intention to make these changes in July, and have been working with the sector to implement the change."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265

    Of course, we'll have to change back when NI buggers off.

    And if Scotland goes too, we'll be left with the rather unappealling EW...........
    Nah, we'll be FUK.

    Former United Kingdom.

    There's precedent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute
    Surely we are the UK, until Scotland buggers off? Neither Wales nor NI are kingdoms.
    It gets very messy.

    The Union of the Kingdoms predates the Union of the countries.

    IIRC the Nats said they would keep the monarchy in the event of independence.
    Though we would both be kingdoms under the same crown, surely that couldn't be a United Kingdom?

    Just as we wouldn't be a United Kingdom with Canada or Fiji?
  • isam said:

    A question for the gamblers of the site - earlier today I was having a conversation with someone IRL about football and the conversation moved onto gambling and he mentions a website he uses which supposedly "guarantees" you win money from gambling, though bookies could ultimately ban you for it apparently (which is what many here have said before about how they deal with successful gamblers).

    The site is called Oddmonkey and apparently it gives "guaranteed" bet tips by giving bets (often with 'reload' offers) and a lay off from that bet with Betfair that combines to winning money. And apparently Acca and Expected Value bets that don't guarantee a return but have an expected profit (so like tips here).

    Has anyone ever heard of this before and anyone have any experience of it? I rather feel like if something sounds too good to be true it usually is - though I know many people here do well from gambling so sounds like a similar concept?

    Is it backing bookie special offers then laying them back on Betfair? Good way for the people at OddsMonkey to get on the special offers at a tick less than the bookie price without having to open up the accounts I reckon
    Yes apparently its mainly bookies offers with instructions to back the bet and then lay it off at Betfair for a profit. With instructions on how much to back and lay for.

    £18 a month subscription apparently for the site. Does that sound fishy or sensible?
    Neither really. It does not sound particularly fishy in the sense they'll take your money and disappear but certainly it doesn't sound sensible because you'd be paying for the privilege of monitoring their site (or however they communicate) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the tips, because arbs can appear at any hour of the day or night, and then you'll be in a race with their other subscribers to get the bets on before the market adjusts. Still, your daughters are old enough to walk to school on their own, Tesco will deliver your groceries in a van, and as Gordon Gekko said, sleep is for wimps.

  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    ITV leading with Sarah Everard. Presumably SKS would actually approve of that (and I mean that sincerely).

    The mother's statement is heart-breaking. Hard to read. A reminder - if we needed it - that more than one life is destroyed when a murder is committed.

    I find it hard to believe that this man went from indecent exposure to calculated rapist and killer in a few days. If the police are not looking at unsolved rapes, sexual assaults and murders in the places where he lived and worked to see if he did this before, then they bloody well ought to be.

    The people who knew about his flashing, who knew his nickname was "The Rapist" ought to be asking themselves why they did not say anything, why they did not raise the alarm, why they did not "blow the whistle". And if they did, those who ignored them or did not take it seriously need to be asking themselves some hard questions too.

    The clues were there. They were ignored. And a young woman is dead because of that.
    Any policeman (or women) who had such concerns would have come up against an institutional culture and structure that didn't make it worth their while to do so, with a risk-reward ratio that meant they'd get a lot of grief from colleagues (called a scab?) and their seniors would probably take no action anyway - and possibly mark their card. And, besides, they don't really know for sure anyway, do they? It's just rumours and hearsay.

    So, they did nothing. The Met needs to be asking itself some very serious questions about this and making the results public.

    It will do no such thing.
    Of course not. Look at who leads it. Rotten from the head down. Look at the statement from a DCI on the investigation trying to distance the Met from Couzens, saying he should not have been a policeman. Yes, well - who employed him and vetted him and gave him a weapon to carry. It is all so familiar to me - the "no true policeman/Scotsman/banker" fallacy gets trotted out whenever something bad happens, usually accompanied by that old evergreen - "one or two rotten apples".

    The whole bloody organization needs tearing down and starting again. It's my Defund the Met campaign.

    I might even have voted for Priti Patel if she had had the balls to give the police the kicking it so richly deserves. Instead she's extended Cressida's term.

    And so we will be bathed in a torrent of cliches and bathos when he's finally sentenced tomorrow with fuck all of substance being done.
    Ain't that the truth.
  • Scott_xP said:

    🚨BREAKING🚨

    Our snap poll with @SkyNewsBreak on Starmer's speech is out!

    The verdict - Fairly positive.

    % who think he came across as:
    🔴Cares about ordinary people - 68%
    🔴Competent - 62%
    🔴In touch with people’s concerns - 60%
    🔴Strong - 57%
    🔴Interesting - 41% https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1443278145126342656/photo/1

    Of the tiny minority who watched it.
  • Foxy said:

    GB number plates no longer valid.

    If you are driving abroad then your GB plates have to be replaced by UK plates.

    At first encounter, I imagined this was the EU playing silly buggers over Brexit but it turns out the government has told the UN we want to be called UK not GB. I had noticed and wondered why so many ministers kept saying UK instead of British recently, and apparently it is part of some grand scheme to do something or other.

    A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Changing the national identifier from GB to UK symbolises our unity as a nation and is part of a wider move towards using the UK signifier across government.

    "We notified the UN of our intention to make these changes in July, and have been working with the sector to implement the change."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265

    Of course, we'll have to change back when NI buggers off.

    And if Scotland goes too, we'll be left with the rather unappealling EW...........
    Nah, we'll be FUK.

    Former United Kingdom.

    There's precedent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute
    Surely we are the UK, until Scotland buggers off? Neither Wales nor NI are kingdoms.
    It gets very messy.

    The Union of the Kingdoms predates the Union of the countries.

    IIRC the Nats said they would keep the monarchy in the event of independence.
    Since Prince Andrew seems to have permanently barricaded himself in Balmoral we may be lumbered with a small part of it in any case.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,590
    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    ITV leading with Sarah Everard. Presumably SKS would actually approve of that (and I mean that sincerely).

    The mother's statement is heart-breaking. Hard to read. A reminder - if we needed it - that more than one life is destroyed when a murder is committed.

    I find it hard to believe that this man went from indecent exposure to calculated rapist and killer in a few days. If the police are not looking at unsolved rapes, sexual assaults and murders in the places where he lived and worked to see if he did this before, then they bloody well ought to be.

    The people who knew about his flashing, who knew his nickname was "The Rapist" ought to be asking themselves why they did not say anything, why they did not raise the alarm, why they did not "blow the whistle". And if they did, those who ignored them or did not take it seriously need to be asking themselves some hard questions too.

    The clues were there. They were ignored. And a young woman is dead because of that.
    Yes it was heartbreaking, and as a parent I can only guess the appalling pain the Mother is going through, particularly in the knowledge that Ms. Everard would have soon become aware of her fate.

    There does seem to be rather a lot of police officers who have ulterior motives for joining the force. On a day when Starmer's keynote speech was quite rightly sidelined by Couzens' pre-sentencing appearance, it might dawn on Starmer that something he should be looking at for a future Labour Government is vastly more rigerous recruitment procedures for police officers.

    And here's one to put the cat amongst the pigeons. The banning of police officers from joining secret organisations whilst in service. No secret dinners on a Tuesday night with Kenny Noye and no secret handshakes with Wally Virgo.
This discussion has been closed.