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.
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)
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
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 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?
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.
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.
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?
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).
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!
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!
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
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?
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 %
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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...........
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.
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.
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.
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...........
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
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
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...
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
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...........
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.
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.
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...........
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
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..
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...........
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.
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.
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...........
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.
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...........
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..
Comments
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)
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?
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 never knew what it meant.
That's why it's essential Boris Johnson is replaced as PM as soon as possible.
He won't be.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-58722049
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.
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.
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?
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).
Plus keeping my ear to the ground . . . until it get full of grasshopers!
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:
Good to hear there was little sign of vaccine hesitancy.
They're bringing bustards back but no more eating them I guess, the delicious devils.
I would not mention deep-fried Mars Bars. Though I did slightly enjoy the way OTT version on the Grand Tour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC1Gh8CdDYQ
I fear I'll get sunburnt.
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".
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
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?
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
To be fair to him I doubt many speeches do better than that
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/sep/29/saudi-arabia-takeover-of-newcastle-united-will-be-decided-in-january
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.
Priscilla Presley: Thanks, I just had it stuffed!
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?
🤦♂️
This week: The speech was way too long.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nuclear weapons are bad enough and at least somebody else actually presses the button.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
And if Scotland goes too, we'll be left with the rather unappealling EW...........
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.
What a pair of Lord Astors we are, eh?
Former United Kingdom.
There's precedent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute
£18 a month subscription apparently for the site. Does that sound fishy or sensible?
I need cheering up ad I'm going to watch mura give my team a lesson tomorrow night
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
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.
But realistically this may be another front in the Saudi/Qatar conflict and that may end up very bad for the Premier League.
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.
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
Edit: checked Stravaigin online and it seems they occasionally have grey squirrel on the menu..
1,330 people shown video of speech clips this afternoon https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1443278089648214024/photo/1
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
Just as we wouldn't be a United Kingdom with Canada or Fiji?
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.
it is very good though
Then it could be titled FUKOF.