councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
I would suggest that losing an election is a very different category to actual injury to a person.
Indeed, it is a major point of democracy that we can defeat our enemies in such a moral and civilised fashion.
While perhaps celebrating the defeat too much is excessive, it has long been a part of our political life. Consider some of the things written in the immediate aftermath of 1945, for example.
I agree re the order of magnitude; it is not the same.
I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage re 1945.
I think there is a difference between enjoying your win over your opponent and enjoying the loss by an individual. With few exceptions I have felt sorry for the opponent who loses. The only exception being when I have felt they are an unpleasant person. I don't think I will feel sorry for him if Trump loses.
I felt pleased when Ed Balls lost his seat. For years he had given the impression of a highly partisan thug*. Then he went and gave a sincere and magnanimous concession speech and it was hard to take any pleasure in his losing any more. Though it was a pleasure I was happy to forego in return for finding him so much more likeable. I was still pleased that Morley and Outwood went Tory, but only because it seemed so damned improbable**.
If only some of these politicians could display this thoughtful, nuanced and human side a bit more while they were politicians.
*Clearly the standards of 'highly partisan thug' were very different in those days. ** Again, the standards of electoral improbability have shifted somewhat.
I agree, my view of Balls changed once he lost his seat (and also once I was no longer working for a quango that reported to his Department!)
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
Forecasting a first-wave total of 81k deaths for USA, 19k for Spain, 20k for Italy, 15k for France, 9k for Germany and, wait for it....
66k for the UK (!)
UK deaths to be triple those in Spain or Italy anyone?
(Edit: I see now the projection assumes the UK has a total of 799 ICU beds - might be why the death projection is so high.)
There's no sign at the moment that UK deaths will be that high.
The problem is that many people take quite a long time to die. The 6,000+ deaths we have so far represent only a fraction of the deaths we can expect from people infected in the same period. Gievn that we may be only halfway through the wave, I'm afraid 66k doesn't sound outrageously high to me.
Not sure it is just the UK figure that is raising suspicions on their model, it is that Italy, Spain and France are already getting towards their predicted totals and no sign they are anywhere near finished with their outbreak. And as you say, add in the often long time to death.
Yes - it looks too optimistic for all the European countries, possibly excepting Germany. Also, I'm not sure why the expected death rate per head for the USA would be lower than that for the UK.
Also, that model claims that France has peaked, and predicts 650 deaths for the country today. In reality France just recorded 833 deaths (very similar to us), their highest total so far. And the French health minister has just said the peak is still ahead, for them.
The UK predictions are grisly.
At the peak, the model predicts nearly 3000 UK deaths a day
On the very worst night of the Blitz, around 1400 people died
It's very hard to model total death tolls right now, because there are still so many sick in hospital, and so many of them have underlying health conditions.
We are still going to see deaths from people infected in March late in the Autumn, albeit we hope at a very low level.
Indeed. Also there’s the hospice, care home and dying at home category. Who are being missed or undercounted. And then there’s the whole grey area of who-would-have-died-anyway. And genuine excess deaths.
Even the numbers of hospital admissions and ICU cases are confusing, because so many people who would normally have gone to hospital are staying away, for various reasons.
It will be many months if not years before we can step back and say: THAT’S how bad it was.
Likewise comparisons. All this Germany is doing better, Italy is doing worse is mainly a function of time and measurement at the moment. To me it looks increasingly like every Western country is going to end up approximately in the same boat because all have approached it broadly in line with public health science, but each have had quirks and missed chances within that approach.
We may ultimately emulate the various higher volume track and trace approaches of the east, but even there the first wave might only prove to be more stop-start, as Japan and Singapore's resumed upticks suggest.
Tbf to the old racist, imperialist white supremacist, Churchill was gagging to see action in yer actual WWII. I believe he had to be virtually physically restrained from being in the vicinity of the D Day landings.
Ah OK, fair enough. I thought he'd left all that behind after turning 40 like most of us do. Guess he was one of a kind. So I take back the "cowering in a basement" comment. Unfair. Plenty of basement, yes, but no cowering. Prowling, more like. But still, what Boris is doing right now seems to me to be in a different league. It's visceral.
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
As a Lib Dem, I broadly endorse this message.
It was possibly not wise of Sturgeon to be on camera with that reaction - it maybe came across to some as a bit undignified in a First Minister, and alienated a few potential voters - but it's unlikely to have done real harm and, as you say, "politician celebrates win non-shocker". Certainly, the Lib Dems would be unwise to expect others to be upset about it - most people probably just found it amusing.
On strikers celebrating goals, I also broadly agree. It possibly erred on the side of celebrating in front of the opposition's fans, but it's hard to get worked up about that unless you're an opposition die-hard. On the subject, I rather dislike footballers making a point about muting their celebrations when scoring against former clubs. They aren't your club any more, and it's fine to be happy about scoring.
I don't disagree with this post and think Philip (understandably) misunderstood what I was getting at (probably because of my over simplified reaction to the Sturgeon post).
I do however rather like the football tradition. It is rather polite. It is not like they are not trying to score. Enjoy but show respect. Rather nice.
Well hopefully you are right - but there is certainly the need now for a stand in until he does.
That is Raab and there is no dispute there. He is acting PM until Boris* is well enough to go back to work. But all bets are off if Boris* dies (which he won't but let's assume). Then we need a new PM - trip to palace etc - and I would expect the cabinet to decide and choose Gove.
* To stress again that I am calling him this rather than Johnson only until he's better.
We all profoundly look forward to that day you can again call him Johnson.
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
Philip that is not what I said (probably need to look at my earlier post). She should celebrate gaining a seat and in fairness to Sturgeon she was possibly caught off guard and it isn't obvious what she is celebrating. It didn't look good though.
Re the football. Of course you celebrate scoring the goal. I said that, but after your victory you shake hands with your opponent and commiserate with them.
You don't go up to them and and rub it in do you. At least a civilised person doesn't. That is all I am saying.
Enjoy and celebrate your vistory. Don't enjoy your opponents defeat.
I disagree though, it did look good - it looked human. She's not a robot and she genuinely celebrated a victory: Good for her!
She didn't rub it in anyone's face. She may have commisserated with Swinson afterwards. She'd almost certainly shake hands with her. But the video clip was her celebrating her own victory announced in that moment - good on her for celebrating her own parties victory being announced and her own colleague winning a seat.
Why shouldn't she celebrate that in that instant even if she's human with Swinson afterwards.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
The Acting Secretary of the Navy was really upset that the crew of the Roosevelt cheered their former Captain as he left the ship.
So he flew all the way from Washington to Guam to deliver a lecture to the crew over the loudspeaker system, where he swore at them.
WTF? Why would you do that, rather than just let sleeping dogs lie?
The story would be unbelievable under anyone else.
But chaos seems to be defining feature of the Trump administration.
There seem to be rumors swirling around that the Teddy Rose is far from the only vessel approaching boiling point. Looking back at recent history naval soldiers do tend to feature rather prominently in popular uprisings.
Enjoy and celebrate your vistory. Don't enjoy your opponents defeat.
You might well be right in an ideal world. But it just isn't the real world.
I know lots of political people who have been rather sorry to see a respected opponent lose their seat (not that sorry, but they've felt genuine sympathy). But I don't know any who wouldn't cheer more over a big scalp.
Why the Tory cheers over Balls? Why do people still talk about a "Portillo moment"? Why did Labour go (unsuccessfully) after Johnson and IDS in December? Why the (tastelessly named) Lib Dem "decapitation strategy" in 2001?
It's all a bit unedifying I suppose, but I for one am not going to be po-faced about it because it's human nature.
Mild but intermittent fever. Usual mild 'wet' cough. No loss of smell or taste. No sore throat. Slight tightening across the chest. Body aches and tiredness.
Not the 'classic' symptoms but it would be annoying to get a strange illness which wasn't even it.
Good luck - hope it resolves quickly. In Guernsey the Medical Officer is reporting a range of differing symptoms among positive people. This might help:
I have no issue with politicians celebrating wins and loses. We aren't talking about people losing their lives and yes an MP is technically out of a job, but they know all of this going into such a career and in reality most are able to use their experience and connections to find alternative employment.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
Tbf to the old racist, imperialist white supremacist, Churchill was gagging to see action in yer actual WWII. I believe he had to be virtually physically restrained from being in the vicinity of the D Day landings.
Ah OK, fair enough. I thought he'd left all that behind after turning 40 like most of us do. Guess he was one of a kind. So I take back the "cowering in a basement" comment. Unfair. Plenty of basement, yes, but no cowering. Prowling, more like. But still, what Boris is doing right now seems to me to be in a different league. It's visceral.
He was also a Newspaper correspondent in Sudan and South Africa where he became a POW and escaped from a Boer internment camp.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
You are trolling and being exceptionally silly. It took a personal plea from the King to stop him sailing with the D day fleet.
Yes, @Theuniondivvie has corrected me on that very point. Therefore "cowering in a basement" now retracted and replaced with "prowling in a basement".
Trolling? A bit but not really. Serious point I'm making is that Boris's ratings will IMO go off the scale after this. It IS a War, this is clear, and he IS quite literally fighting the enemy as we speak. So imagine what might happen if and when he vanquishes it.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
Forecasting a first-wave total of 81k deaths for USA, 19k for Spain, 20k for Italy, 15k for France, 9k for Germany and, wait for it....
66k for the UK (!)
UK deaths to be triple those in Spain or Italy anyone?
(Edit: I see now the projection assumes the UK has a total of 799 ICU beds - might be why the death projection is so high.)
There's no sign at the moment that UK deaths will be that high.
The problem is that many people take quite a long time to die. The 6,000+ deaths we have so far represent only a fraction of the deaths we can expect from people infected in the same period. Gievn that we may be only halfway through the wave, I'm afraid 66k doesn't sound outrageously high to me.
Not sure it is just the UK figure that is raising suspicions on their model, it is that Italy, Spain and France are already getting towards their predicted totals and no sign they are anywhere near finished with their outbreak. And as you say, add in the often long time to death.
Yes - it looks too optimistic for all the European countries, possibly excepting Germany. Also, I'm not sure why the expected death rate per head for the USA would be lower than that for the UK.
Also, that model claims that France has peaked, and predicts 650 deaths for the country today. In reality France just recorded 833 deaths (very similar to us), their highest total so far. And the French health minister has just said the peak is still ahead, for them.
The UK predictions are grisly.
At the peak, the model predicts nearly 3000 UK deaths a day
On the very worst night of the Blitz, around 1400 people died
It's very hard to model total death tolls right now, because there are still so many sick in hospital, and so many of them have underlying health conditions.
We are still going to see deaths from people infected in March late in the Autumn, albeit we hope at a very low level.
Indeed. Also there’s the hospice, care home and dying at home category. Who are being missed or undercounted. And then there’s the whole grey area of who-would-have-died-anyway. And genuine excess deaths.
Even the numbers of hospital admissions and ICU cases are confusing, because so many people who would normally have gone to hospital are staying away, for various reasons.
It will be many months if not years before we can step back and say: THAT’S how bad it was.
So far, UK deaths year to date look unremarkable, low, even. Likely this will change as we pass through the peak period. Nevertheless the predictions you posted here of millions of British deaths look even more absurd now than they did at the time.
But to be fair Eadric's predictions were predicated on us doing nothing. And if we had done nothing then I can see that he would have been in the right order of magnitude.
Mild but intermittent fever. Usual mild 'wet' cough. No loss of smell or taste. No sore throat. Slight tightening across the chest. Body aches and tiredness.
Not the 'classic' symptoms but it would be annoying to get a strange illness which wasn't even it.
Good luck - hope it resolves quickly. In Guernsey the Medical Officer is reporting a range of differing symptoms among positive people. This might help:
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
The Acting Secretary of the Navy was really upset that the crew of the Roosevelt cheered their former Captain as he left the ship.
So he flew all the way from Washington to Guam to deliver a lecture to the crew over the loudspeaker system, where he swore at them.
WTF? Why would you do that, rather than just let sleeping dogs lie?
The story would be unbelievable under anyone else.
But chaos seems to be defining feature of the Trump administration.
There seem to be rumors swirling around that the Teddy Rose is far from the only vessel approaching boiling point. Looking back at recent history naval soldiers do tend to feature rather prominently in popular uprisings.
Anyone else gat a flash of someone twirling ball bears between his fingers and something about strawberries??
'Had it in for them'? Odd & slightly petty use of the vernacular by the Pontifex in the circumstances.
I think the reason for his slightly unusual reaction is that the pope appears to believe, rightly or wrongly, that this case was a stitch-up by elements within the Catholic Church who were trying to block Pell’s reforms of the Vatican’s finances.
On vaccine promises: I would sound a small note of caution - until animal and human trials have been completed these are potential vaccines, nothing more.
Back when SARS was thought to be a potentially grave threat, several companies started working on vaccines. One of them had a vaccine that showed great promise & had got as far as small animal trials I believe, where the vaccine showed a strong immune response. Great! The trouble was, on re-infection with the SARS virus the poor creatures’ immune systems all went beserk and the animals died.
Creating a vaccine that works & doesn’t kill you is not a trivial thing: You do not skip on your animal or very small scale human testing, because if it goes wrong the consequences could be mass death on a scale far worse than the Coronavirus itself.
Though current vaccine development is of course informed by the SARS experience, as you say, ADE can't be discounted.
The great shame is that much of the SARS work was defunded very soon after the outbreak was snuffed out; for a relatively small expenditure, we could have been far better prepared.
They are still working on a vaccine for MERS and have been for years. But not got anywhere as far as I can see. These coronaviruses seem to be particularly difficult to develop vaccines for.
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
I would suggest that losing an election is a very different category to actual injury to a person.
Indeed, it is a major point of democracy that we can defeat our enemies in such a moral and civilised fashion.
While perhaps celebrating the defeat too much is excessive, it has long been a part of our political life. Consider some of the things written in the immediate aftermath of 1945, for example.
I agree re the order of magnitude; it is not the same.
I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage re 1945.
I think there is a difference between enjoying your win over your opponent and enjoying the loss by an individual. With few exceptions I have felt sorry for the opponent who loses. The only exception being when I have felt they are an unpleasant person. I don't think I will feel sorry for him if Trump loses.
I felt pleased when Ed Balls lost his seat. For years he had given the impression of a highly partisan thug*. Then he went and gave a sincere and magnanimous concession speech and it was hard to take any pleasure in his losing any more. Though it was a pleasure I was happy to forego in return for finding him so much more likeable. I was still pleased that Morley and Outwood went Tory, but only because it seemed so damned improbable**.
If only some of these politicians could display this thoughtful, nuanced and human side a bit more while they were politicians.
*Clearly the standards of 'highly partisan thug' were very different in those days. ** Again, the standards of electoral improbability have shifted somewhat.
I agree, my view of Balls changed once he lost his seat (and also once I was no longer working for a quango that reported to his Department!)
Some politicians change for the better when they lose their seat. Portillo and Balls are both good examples. Maybe it is the jolt they need to come back down to Earth.
Tbf to the old racist, imperialist white supremacist, Churchill was gagging to see action in yer actual WWII. I believe he had to be virtually physically restrained from being in the vicinity of the D Day landings.
Ah OK, fair enough. I thought he'd left all that behind after turning 40 like most of us do. Guess he was one of a kind. So I take back the "cowering in a basement" comment. Unfair. Plenty of basement, yes, but no cowering. Prowling, more like. But still, what Boris is doing right now seems to me to be in a different league. It's visceral.
Churchill did go to the D-Day landings a couple of days later and his ship loosed off a few broadsides in the general direction of France (which is what the Navy did in support of the invasion). Earlier in the war, during air raids, he'd watch from the roof instead of going down to the shelter.
If you watch the programme Churchill's First World War, there is some discussion of his fearlessness (perhaps a better word than courage) in the trenches of the previous conflict.
ETA: what Boris is doing now is being ill. Churchill covered that too by having a heart attack during the second world war that was hushed up, including from the patient himself iirc.
2nd ETA: Churchill was one of several successive Prime Ministers who had fought in the Great War: Attlee, Eden and Macmillan were to follow.
Churchill was commissioned in the 4th Hussars. He saw action on the North West Frontier, in Sudan, and in South Africa (where he was taken prisoner). In 1916-17 he was Colonel of the Royal Scots Fusiliers* and was with them in the trenches (as, contrary to popular belief, were most officers below the rank of divisional commander).
He was also heavily involved in the Sidney Street Siege of 1911, where his orders led to two alleged criminals being burned alive.
He saw plenty of action.
*Fun fact - his adjutant was Major Archibald Sinclair, who subsequently became a Liberal MP, leader of the Liberals, a staunch opponent of Appeasement and finally Churchill’s Secretary of State for Air. Liberals disparagingly commented that Sinclair ‘still seemed to stand to attention when Winston addressed him.’
Most of that was Simon Ward though, rather than Gary Oldman.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
The Acting Secretary of the Navy was really upset that the crew of the Roosevelt cheered their former Captain as he left the ship.
So he flew all the way from Washington to Guam to deliver a lecture to the crew over the loudspeaker system, where he swore at them.
WTF? Why would you do that, rather than just let sleeping dogs lie?
The story would be unbelievable under anyone else.
But chaos seems to be defining feature of the Trump administration.
A mutiny on a nuclear armed aircraft carrier would be a sight to behold
Nuclear-armed, or nuclear-powered?
I would imagine both. Surely they have tactical nukes on aircraft carriers? Some quick Google research says that something called a "B61 Nuclear Bomb" is deployed on USN anti-submarine aircraft.
I have no issue with politicians celebrating wins and loses. We aren't talking about people losing their lives and yes an MP is technically out of a job, but they know all of this going into such a career and in reality most are able to use their experience and connections to find alternative employment.
I really have opened a can of worms here haven't I.
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
The Acting Secretary of the Navy was really upset that the crew of the Roosevelt cheered their former Captain as he left the ship.
So he flew all the way from Washington to Guam to deliver a lecture to the crew over the loudspeaker system, where he swore at them.
WTF? Why would you do that, rather than just let sleeping dogs lie?
The story would be unbelievable under anyone else.
But chaos seems to be defining feature of the Trump administration.
A mutiny on a nuclear armed aircraft carrier would be a sight to behold
Nuclear-armed, or nuclear-powered?
I would imagine both. Surely they have tactical nukes on aircraft carriers? Some quick Google research says that something called a "B61 Nuclear Bomb" is deployed on USN anti-submarine aircraft.
That's 1 of the 2 types of nuclear gravity bomb* left in the US arsenal - all the other nuclear weapons are ballistic missile warheads.
* Bomb that looks like any other bomb that falls off aircraft.
I am intrigued. We are seeing the sort of level of deaths as Italy, Spain and France, but no real reports of hospitals crashing under the weight of cases. We have had a couple of hospitals have alerts, but nothing like in Northern Italy or Madrid, where hospitals were literally sinking under the shear volume of people, beds everywhere, people on floors, etc.
We've had a bit more time to prepare than Italy and Spain did.
Saw a hint of a story yesterday that at one time we had excellent pandemic plans, and stores, but one of Cameron's governments scrapped them.
Cannot by any means vouch for the truth of this. If any pb-er knows I'm sure we'd all be interested.
Where did the hint of the story come from?
Got to dig a bit more on the detail there BUT just been in a virtual U3a science meeting where one of the participants remarked, unprompted, that back in 2011 she'd been involved in such pandemic planning. It appeared that the problem in 2020 has been speed and scale.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
The Acting Secretary of the Navy was really upset that the crew of the Roosevelt cheered their former Captain as he left the ship.
So he flew all the way from Washington to Guam to deliver a lecture to the crew over the loudspeaker system, where he swore at them.
WTF? Why would you do that, rather than just let sleeping dogs lie?
The story would be unbelievable under anyone else.
But chaos seems to be defining feature of the Trump administration.
A mutiny on a nuclear armed aircraft carrier would be a sight to behold
Nuclear-armed, or nuclear-powered?
I would imagine both. Surely they have tactical nukes on aircraft carriers? Some quick Google research says that something called a "B61 Nuclear Bomb" is deployed on USN anti-submarine aircraft.
Interesting, thanks. Not as worrying about a mutiny on a nuclear-armed ballistic submarine.
I am intrigued. We are seeing the sort of level of deaths as Italy, Spain and France, but no real reports of hospitals crashing under the weight of cases. We have had a couple of hospitals have alerts, but nothing like in Northern Italy or Madrid, where hospitals were literally sinking under the shear volume of people, beds everywhere, people on floors, etc.
We've had a bit more time to prepare than Italy and Spain did.
Saw a hint of a story yesterday that at one time we had excellent pandemic plans, and stores, but one of Cameron's governments scrapped them.
Cannot by any means vouch for the truth of this. If any pb-er knows I'm sure we'd all be interested.
Where did the hint of the story come from?
Got to dig a bit more on the detail there BUT just been in a virtual U3a science meeting where one of the participants remarked, unprompted, that back in 2011 she'd been involved in such pandemic planning. It appeared that the problem in 2020 has been speed and scale.
Isn't that just the same story that was covered a week or so ago about the pandemic exercises early in the 2010s?
I have no issue with politicians celebrating wins and loses. We aren't talking about people losing their lives and yes an MP is technically out of a job, but they know all of this going into such a career and in reality most are able to use their experience and connections to find alternative employment.
I really have opened a can of worms here haven't I.
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
I'm sorry but there isn't a difference because they're two sides of the same coin.
Had Sturgeon been filmed responding to a Con Gain of Swinson's seat then yes it would have been just schaudenfreude but she wasn't, she was filmed celebrating an SNP gain. Her own gain.
Damn right she should celebrate that and if that's Sturgeon's loss then that's too bad for Sturgeon.
What absolute crap. The main criticism of Churchill in WWII was that he took too many personal risks, especially dangerous flights.
But as PM he never fought the enemy up close and personal as Boris is fighting this one.
I think he had already done his bit fighting the enemy close up and personal as a battalion commander leading from the front in the trenches in WW1.
And all through WW2 even though he was often in poor health he insisted on doing what was needed even when it was at the risk of his health and perhaps his life. As I said yesterday he had a heart attack the evening he made his speech to Congress in 1941.
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
I agree. Her side win and she celebrated, it wasn't even particularly gloating.
Tbf to the old racist, imperialist white supremacist, Churchill was gagging to see action in yer actual WWII. I believe he had to be virtually physically restrained from being in the vicinity of the D Day landings.
Ah OK, fair enough. I thought he'd left all that behind after turning 40 like most of us do. Guess he was one of a kind. So I take back the "cowering in a basement" comment. Unfair. Plenty of basement, yes, but no cowering. Prowling, more like. But still, what Boris is doing right now seems to me to be in a different league. It's visceral.
Churchill did go to the D-Day landings a couple of days later and his ship loosed off a few broadsides in the general direction of France (which is what the Navy did in support of the invasion). Earlier in the war, during air raids, he'd watch from the roof instead of going down to the shelter.
If you watch the programme Churchill's First World War, there is some discussion of his fearlessness (perhaps a better word than courage) in the trenches of the previous conflict.
ETA: what Boris is doing now is being ill. Churchill covered that too by having a heart attack during the second world war that was hushed up, including from the patient himself iirc.
2nd ETA: Churchill was one of several successive Prime Ministers who had fought in the Great War: Attlee, Eden and Macmillan were to follow.
Churchill's plan for what to do in the event of invasion was interesting. He would send the Royal family to Canada. And wait for the Germans in a specially built sandbag bunker outside the door to No 10. Big enough for Churchill to sit in a chair (he was in his 60s) with a shelf for magazines for his favourite Thompson sub-machine gun and a shelf for his booze.
What absolute crap. The main criticism of Churchill in WWII was that he took too many personal risks, especially dangerous flights.
But as PM he never fought the enemy up close and personal as Boris is fighting this one.
Come on. By 1940 he was 65 and physically less than fit. Sending him to fight would have been the silliest kind of tokenism. That’s what energetic young men like my grandfather were for.
Even sending him to a field command post would have been silly given how mobile they had to be.
And finally, the place for an overall leader is not at the battlefront - it’s where they can see what’s happening and co-ordinate things.
And all that said, he made several trips to visit troops abroad, inducing to North Africa. He did the V for Victory - they all gave the Agincourt V back. Apparently everyone including him was laughing so much they were struggling to stand up.
Churchill himself often gave the V-sign the wrong way round; tbh I do not think he very much liked that Mr Hitler. If you are short of homework assignments, perhaps 5c could do an image search for evidence.
Some politicians change for the better when they lose their seat. Portillo and Balls are both good examples. Maybe it is the jolt they need to come back down to Earth.
I think defeat in itself humanises people to their opponents.
Thatcher and Blair were in some ways unlucky never to lose an election - part of the bile towards each is bitterness that they were never beaten in combat. Major and Brown are not loved by their opponents... but the attitude is much more mellow. (Albeit Blair is in an odd position as he also gets it from his own party).
Balls and Portillo also went on to do light entertainment TV shows. I'm not a massive fan of either Strictly or Portillo's train thing, but they aren't cut by the producer to make the person actively dislikable. They are being presented as a poor but game dancer, and a chap looking at scenery and doing soft interviews in a gaudy suit respectively. It's hard to hate that unless you're fundamentally misanthropic - you might not watch it, but that's a choice. Whereas as a politician, you are doing things people may well oppose strongly - that is literally the job.
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
I agree. Her side win and she celebrated, it wasn't even particularly gloating.
I never really saw the problem with it either. Was she not supposed to be pleased?
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
I really have opened a can of worms here haven't I.
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
A very sweet and benign post yours was, in fact. Felt sorry for Portillo in 97 - given you were not (I presume since nobody was) a supporter of the Tories in that election this marks you out as rather special.
What absolute crap. The main criticism of Churchill in WWII was that he took too many personal risks, especially dangerous flights.
But as PM he never fought the enemy up close and personal as Boris is fighting this one.
Are you suggesting that Boris deliberately chose this close and personal fight? I thought it was just something that happened to him - in the same way that being bombed just happened to a lot of people in the Second World War.
Tbf to the old racist, imperialist white supremacist, Churchill was gagging to see action in yer actual WWII. I believe he had to be virtually physically restrained from being in the vicinity of the D Day landings.
Ah OK, fair enough. I thought he'd left all that behind after turning 40 like most of us do. Guess he was one of a kind. So I take back the "cowering in a basement" comment. Unfair. Plenty of basement, yes, but no cowering. Prowling, more like. But still, what Boris is doing right now seems to me to be in a different league. It's visceral.
Churchill did go to the D-Day landings a couple of days later and his ship loosed off a few broadsides in the general direction of France (which is what the Navy did in support of the invasion). Earlier in the war, during air raids, he'd watch from the roof instead of going down to the shelter.
If you watch the programme Churchill's First World War, there is some discussion of his fearlessness (perhaps a better word than courage) in the trenches of the previous conflict.
ETA: what Boris is doing now is being ill. Churchill covered that too by having a heart attack during the second world war that was hushed up, including from the patient himself iirc.
2nd ETA: Churchill was one of several successive Prime Ministers who had fought in the Great War: Attlee, Eden and Macmillan were to follow.
Interesting fun fact I just came across was that the Battalion Churchill commanded in 1916-17 (6th Royal Scots Fusiliers ) was very close in the line to the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment which included in its number one Adolf Hitler. It is likely that the two men were within 5 miles of each other for a few months.
I have no issue with politicians celebrating wins and loses. We aren't talking about people losing their lives and yes an MP is technically out of a job, but they know all of this going into such a career and in reality most are able to use their experience and connections to find alternative employment.
I really have opened a can of worms here haven't I.
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
I'm sorry but there isn't a difference because they're two sides of the same coin.
Had Sturgeon been filmed responding to a Con Gain of Swinson's seat then yes it would have been just schaudenfreude but she wasn't, she was filmed celebrating an SNP gain. Her own gain.
Damn right she should celebrate that and if that's Sturgeon's loss then that's too bad for Sturgeon.
Philip, forget Sturgeon. It was a mistake on my part reacting too fast to another's post. I can't know whether she was celebrating winning or Swinson losing so it is not fair of me to comment as I did. It didn't look good at the time, but I think that is unfair on her. I can't possibly know what was in her mind.
What about the general principle of enjoying your victory but feeling sorry for your opponent (with the justifiable exception of an offensive opponent e.g. a cheat)?
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Wasn't he just found not guilty?
The verdict was quashed due to what they called 'an element of doubt'.
Is quashing a verdict the same as "not guilty"? He's certainly not guilty under the law, but so was OJ Simpson.
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guilty, end of conversation.
He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Wasn't he just found not guilty?
The verdict was quashed due to what they called "an element of doubt".
Is quashing a verdict the same as "not guilty"? He's certainly not guilty under the law, but so was OJ Simpson.
Yes, the guilty verdict was replaced by one of acquittal.
In its two-page summary of the ruling, the High Court said that the jury "ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offenses for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place."
I am intrigued. We are seeing the sort of level of deaths as Italy, Spain and France, but no real reports of hospitals crashing under the weight of cases. We have had a couple of hospitals have alerts, but nothing like in Northern Italy or Madrid, where hospitals were literally sinking under the shear volume of people, beds everywhere, people on floors, etc.
We've had a bit more time to prepare than Italy and Spain did.
Saw a hint of a story yesterday that at one time we had excellent pandemic plans, and stores, but one of Cameron's governments scrapped them.
Cannot by any means vouch for the truth of this. If any pb-er knows I'm sure we'd all be interested.
Where did the hint of the story come from?
Got to dig a bit more on the detail there BUT just been in a virtual U3a science meeting where one of the participants remarked, unprompted, that back in 2011 she'd been involved in such pandemic planning. It appeared that the problem in 2020 has been speed and scale.
Isn't that just the same story that was covered a week or so ago about the pandemic exercises early in the 2010s?
There was a 2016 cover-up reported in the Telegraph. One reason I'm not backing Hunt. Codenamed Exercise Cygnus, the three-day dry run for a pandemic carried out in October 2016 tested how NHS hospitals and other services would cope in the event of a major flu outbreak with a similar mortality rate to Covid-19.
The report on Cygnus’s findings were deemed too sensitive by Whitehall officials to be made public but the Sunday Telegraph has established that it found:
The NHS lacked adequate “surge capacity” and would require thousands more critical care beds to cope with a severe pandemic
Health bosses would need to “switch off” large parts of the NHS to cope with demand
Medics would need to adopt a “battlefield” mentality, with frail patients denied critical care
Mortuaries would be quickly overwhelmed
Potential failings in the supply of PPE to doctors and nurses
Officials even discussed preventing midwives from delivering newborn babies so they could be sent to care for the critically ill
Despite the failings exposed by Cygnus, the government never changed its strategic roadmap for a future pandemic, with the last update carried out in 2014.
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Wasn't he just found not guilty?
I haven't seen the evidence myself, but an Australian aquaintance tells me that it was a case where evidence that the crime couldn't have taken place as described was ignored by the jury. Does anyone actually know?
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guily, end of conversation. He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
Yes and he shouldn't be in jail.
But the Catholic Church remains a vile organisation whose only role on the matter should be profoundly apologising for covering up paedophilic abusers.
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guily, end of conversation. He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
Yes and he shouldn't be in jail.
But the Catholic Church remains a vile organisation whose only role on the matter should be profoundly apologising for covering up paedophilic abusers.
Half the foodbanks in the world are provided by the Catholic church and much of the great art and architecture and many of the schools and hospitals were also created by the Catholic church.
Pell was acquitted on appeal, if he was it suggests other accused may be too, apologies where guilty verdicts are given, certainly not where allegations are proven unfounded
I really have opened a can of worms here haven't I.
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
A very sweet and benign post yours was, in fact. Felt sorry for Portillo in 97 - given you were not (I presume since nobody was) a supporter of the Tories in that election this marks you out as rather special.
Well that is particularly nice of you, but I don't think I am particularly special in that respect.
No I definitely wasn't supporting the Tories I was campaigning for the LDs and was celebrating myself that night at a party, but that moment was very moving for me both because of Twigg's win and Portillo's loss even though I supported neither.
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
Philip that is not what I said (probably need to look at my earlier post). She should celebrate gaining a seat and in fairness to Sturgeon she was possibly caught off guard and it isn't obvious what she is celebrating. It didn't look good though.
Re the football. Of course you celebrate scoring the goal. I said that, but after your victory you shake hands with your opponent and commiserate with them.
You don't go up to them and and rub it in do you. At least a civilised person doesn't. That is all I am saying.
Enjoy and celebrate your vistory. Don't enjoy your opponents defeat.
I disagree though, it did look good - it looked human. She's not a robot and she genuinely celebrated a victory: Good for her!
She didn't rub it in anyone's face. She may have commisserated with Swinson afterwards. She'd almost certainly shake hands with her. But the video clip was her celebrating her own victory announced in that moment - good on her for celebrating her own parties victory being announced and her own colleague winning a seat.
Why shouldn't she celebrate that in that instant even if she's human with Swinson afterwards.
Are you saying Sturgeon was only sure of victory for the SNP at exactly the same moment that Swinson lost her seat to the SNP (not to Sturgeon herself). By that time SNP victory was certain.
I have no issue with politicians celebrating wins and loses. We aren't talking about people losing their lives and yes an MP is technically out of a job, but they know all of this going into such a career and in reality most are able to use their experience and connections to find alternative employment.
I really have opened a can of worms here haven't I.
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
I'm sorry but there isn't a difference because they're two sides of the same coin.
Had Sturgeon been filmed responding to a Con Gain of Swinson's seat then yes it would have been just schaudenfreude but she wasn't, she was filmed celebrating an SNP gain. Her own gain.
Damn right she should celebrate that and if that's Sturgeon's loss then that's too bad for Sturgeon.
Philip, forget Sturgeon. It was a mistake on my part reacting too fast to another's post. I can't know whether she was celebrating winning or Swinson losing so it is not fair of me to comment as I did. It didn't look good at the time, but I think that is unfair on her. I can't possibly know what was in her mind.
What about the general principle of enjoying your victory but feeling sorry for your opponent (with the justifiable exception of an offensive opponent e.g. a cheat)?
Her winning/Swinson losng were the exact same thing. Swinson's defeat was an SNP gain, her gain. That is my point - celebrating your own side defeating your opponent is natural. Its like saying Liverpool shouldn't celebrate victory over Manchester United because its harsh on Manchester United. I'm sorry but victory is victory and celebrate it in the moment and commiserate afterwards.The celebrations come first naturally and she was caught on camera in the moment celebrating - she is human and good for her.
You can feel sorry for your opponent afterwards absolutely. At the moment though its entirely appropriate to enjoy your victory/their defeat which is the same thing.
Churchill did go to the D-Day landings a couple of days later and his ship loosed off a few broadsides in the general direction of France (which is what the Navy did in support of the invasion). Earlier in the war, during air raids, he'd watch from the roof instead of going down to the shelter.
If you watch the programme Churchill's First World War, there is some discussion of his fearlessness (perhaps a better word than courage) in the trenches of the previous conflict.
ETA: what Boris is doing now is being ill. Churchill covered that too by having a heart attack during the second world war that was hushed up, including from the patient himself iirc.
2nd ETA: Churchill was one of several successive Prime Ministers who had fought in the Great War: Attlee, Eden and Macmillan were to follow.
Yes, I was listening to the story of his heart attack on the radio this morning. Very interesting. It was felt it had to be kept secret for morale purposes, to stop ours falling and theirs rising.
OK, perhaps the Churchill comparison is a stretch. But I do think this is more than "Boris being ill". He's the PM and he is ill with the virus we are fighting. So that is quite something. That he makes it is more important than it would be if, say, it was two months ago and he was battling a more conventional disease.
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
Philip that is not what I said (probably need to look at my earlier post). She should celebrate gaining a seat and in fairness to Sturgeon she was possibly caught off guard and it isn't obvious what she is celebrating. It didn't look good though.
Re the football. Of course you celebrate scoring the goal. I said that, but after your victory you shake hands with your opponent and commiserate with them.
You don't go up to them and and rub it in do you. At least a civilised person doesn't. That is all I am saying.
Enjoy and celebrate your vistory. Don't enjoy your opponents defeat.
I disagree though, it did look good - it looked human. She's not a robot and she genuinely celebrated a victory: Good for her!
She didn't rub it in anyone's face. She may have commisserated with Swinson afterwards. She'd almost certainly shake hands with her. But the video clip was her celebrating her own victory announced in that moment - good on her for celebrating her own parties victory being announced and her own colleague winning a seat.
Why shouldn't she celebrate that in that instant even if she's human with Swinson afterwards.
Are you saying Sturgeon was only sure of victory for the SNP at exactly the same moment that Swinson lost her seat to the SNP (not to Sturgeon herself). By that time SNP victory was certain.
Sturgeon was only sure of victory for the SNP in East Dunbartonshire at the exact same moment that Swinson lost her seat of East Dunbartonshire yes.
As party leader Sturgeon is responsible for every single SNP candidate not just her own seat (and she didn't even have one that night).
I am intrigued. We are seeing the sort of level of deaths as Italy, Spain and France, but no real reports of hospitals crashing under the weight of cases. We have had a couple of hospitals have alerts, but nothing like in Northern Italy or Madrid, where hospitals were literally sinking under the shear volume of people, beds everywhere, people on floors, etc.
We've had a bit more time to prepare than Italy and Spain did.
Saw a hint of a story yesterday that at one time we had excellent pandemic plans, and stores, but one of Cameron's governments scrapped them.
Cannot by any means vouch for the truth of this. If any pb-er knows I'm sure we'd all be interested.
Where did the hint of the story come from?
Got to dig a bit more on the detail there BUT just been in a virtual U3a science meeting where one of the participants remarked, unprompted, that back in 2011 she'd been involved in such pandemic planning. It appeared that the problem in 2020 has been speed and scale.
Isn't that just the same story that was covered a week or so ago about the pandemic exercises early in the 2010s?
There was a 2016 cover-up reported in the Telegraph. One reason I'm not backing Hunt. Codenamed Exercise Cygnus, the three-day dry run for a pandemic carried out in October 2016 tested how NHS hospitals and other services would cope in the event of a major flu outbreak with a similar mortality rate to Covid-19.
The report on Cygnus’s findings were deemed too sensitive by Whitehall officials to be made public but the Sunday Telegraph has established that it found:
The NHS lacked adequate “surge capacity” and would require thousands more critical care beds to cope with a severe pandemic
Health bosses would need to “switch off” large parts of the NHS to cope with demand
Medics would need to adopt a “battlefield” mentality, with frail patients denied critical care
Mortuaries would be quickly overwhelmed
Potential failings in the supply of PPE to doctors and nurses
Officials even discussed preventing midwives from delivering newborn babies so they could be sent to care for the critically ill
Despite the failings exposed by Cygnus, the government never changed its strategic roadmap for a future pandemic, with the last update carried out in 2014.
Him posting it now when it's so out of date almost seems irresponsible. Trying to propagate a view that it is nothing to worry about.
I wouldn’t say so, because he is using the latest data we have. What it does tell us is we are well under par so far this year, going into the hazardous last round
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
Philip that is not what I said (probably need to look at my earlier post). She should celebrate gaining a seat and in fairness to Sturgeon she was possibly caught off guard and it isn't obvious what she is celebrating. It didn't look good though.
Re the football. Of course you celebrate scoring the goal. I said that, but after your victory you shake hands with your opponent and commiserate with them.
You don't go up to them and and rub it in do you. At least a civilised person doesn't. That is all I am saying.
Enjoy and celebrate your vistory. Don't enjoy your opponents defeat.
I disagree though, it did look good - it looked human. She's not a robot and she genuinely celebrated a victory: Good for her!
She didn't rub it in anyone's face. She may have commisserated with Swinson afterwards. She'd almost certainly shake hands with her. But the video clip was her celebrating her own victory announced in that moment - good on her for celebrating her own parties victory being announced and her own colleague winning a seat.
Why shouldn't she celebrate that in that instant even if she's human with Swinson afterwards.
Are you saying Sturgeon was only sure of victory for the SNP at exactly the same moment that Swinson lost her seat to the SNP (not to Sturgeon herself). By that time SNP victory was certain.
Sturgeon was only sure of victory for the SNP in East Dunbartonshire at the exact same moment that Swinson lost her seat of East Dunbartonshire yes.
As party leader Sturgeon is responsible for every single SNP candidate not just her own seat (and she didn't even have one that night).
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
I agree. Her side win and she celebrated, it wasn't even particularly gloating.
But isn't celebrating beating Jo Swinson a bit like celebrating scoring a goal against a kid with cerebral palsy?
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guily, end of conversation. He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
Yes and he shouldn't be in jail.
But the Catholic Church remains a vile organisation whose only role on the matter should be profoundly apologising for covering up paedophilic abusers.
US Acting Navy Secretary talking to the sailors of the USS Roosevelt:
President Trump’s acting Navy secretary, in a profanity-laced reprimand delivered Monday, criticized sailors aboard the stricken aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt for cheering their captain, who was removed after he appealed for help as coronavirus spread throughout the warship.
The Navy’s top civilian, Thomas B. Modly, delivered his message over the ship’s loudspeaker system and deepened the raw us-versus-them atmosphere that had already engulfed the carrier. It also exposed the schism between a commander in chief with little regard for the military’s chain of command and the uniformed Navy that is sworn to follow him.
The Acting Secretary of the Navy was really upset that the crew of the Roosevelt cheered their former Captain as he left the ship.
So he flew all the way from Washington to Guam to deliver a lecture to the crew over the loudspeaker system, where he swore at them.
WTF? Why would you do that, rather than just let sleeping dogs lie?
Because Trump appointed someone of like mind ?
Busy afternoon so just dipped back in. What The Actual? I know its Trump, but wow...
Why did he fly from Washington to Guam to effing swear at them and blame China? Because this Captain INSULTED OUR PRESIDENT! You can't point to actual issues you actually have, thats a political attack that is. And its the same here. Loons on Facebook attacking a GMB report highlighting medics highlighting the lack of PPE. Its just a political motivated attack on OUR PRESIDENT Prime Minister. Because of who said it and how, not because what they said isn't true. Now the BMA have come out saying the same thing the "its the GMB must be a political attack" mob are doing HYUFD-scale backflips.
Same with this guy. Once you deny the facts you have to do bigger and bigger backflips to try and pretend that what is happening isn't happening. Not having PPE on your ship isn't as scary as Hypersonic Missiles. Not having tests for staff in your hospitals is the fault of the chemical industry. Whatever. Doesn't matter. Make it up. Deflect. Divert. Lets all clap for Boris at 8pm. All hail Trump.
Afternoon Ydoethur, lazy git, some of us have to work. I am stuck on webex, and spreadsheets.
@ydoethur might need to get back to work soon. The boffins are having second thoughts on school closures.
Countries like the UK that have closed schools to help stop the spread of coronavirus should ask hard questions about whether this is now the right policy, says one team of scientists.
The University College London team says keeping pupils off has little impact, even with other lockdown measures.
But a scientist whose work has informed the UK strategy insists school closures play an important role.
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guily, end of conversation. He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
Yes and he shouldn't be in jail.
But the Catholic Church remains a vile organisation whose only role on the matter should be profoundly apologising for covering up paedophilic abusers.
Some of the people are vile. Not all of them...
The institution is and corrupt. The world would be a better place without it.
councillor Sheila Oakes, who is currently mayor of Heanor in Derbyshire, saying: 'Sorry he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PM's we've ever had.'
Haters got to hate eh
I don’t like Johnson. Or Cummings. Or Corbyn. Or Drakeford. Or Raab. Or Patel.
But I don’t wish death on them. One of them is seriously ill. I hope he recovers. Similarly, although he’s been silent for some time, I hope Cummings is making progress towards a full recovery.
Maybe I would for real, utter, unredeemable scumbags like Xi, or Kim, or Mugabe.
But none of them are even remotely in that class. None of them are out trying to cause deaths, or seize power illegally, or enrich themselves at the expense of the British people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly not worth listening to.
I agree. I raised a similar point during the election when a minority of our more right wing posters were expressing excessive joy and pleasure if, as happened, some of their opponents lost. It wasn't the pleasure of winning (which of course one should enjoy) but it was the expressed pleasure of an opponent losing. Of course you celebrate your victory, but have sympathy for those that lose.
I remember when Stephen Twigg won I was very pleased for him and simultaneously sorry for Michael Portillo, yet I supported neither.
Similarly in a sporting contest you enjoy your victory but feel for your opponent.
The only exception for me is, as you said a serious corrupt politician or a cheat in a sporting event.
That behaviour really isn't limited to one wing of politics. See Sturgeon's reaction, for example.
Absolutely.
I wasn't making a political biased point. It is just what happened and that I called out at the time. I would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot as it will be. It is the individuals (whether right left or centre) not the parties.
Agree re Sturgeon. It was unpleasant.
I couldn't disagree more. Sturgeon was entirely appropriate to celebrate winning a seat, let alone winning such a high profile scalp.
Suggesting it is inappropriate to celebrate gaining a seat because an opposition has lost it is as utterly facetious as claiming it is inappropriate for a striker to celebrate scoring a goal because an opposition has conceded it.
I agree. Her side win and she celebrated, it wasn't even particularly gloating.
But isn't celebrating beating Jo Swinson a bit like celebrating scoring a goal against a kid with cerebral palsy?
In terms of "party with most seats", yes. Knocking her off her own seat was still an accomplishment - only seat the LDs lost all night, wasn't it?
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guilty, end of conversation.
He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
Churchill did go to the D-Day landings a couple of days later and his ship loosed off a few broadsides in the general direction of France (which is what the Navy did in support of the invasion). Earlier in the war, during air raids, he'd watch from the roof instead of going down to the shelter.
If you watch the programme Churchill's First World War, there is some discussion of his fearlessness (perhaps a better word than courage) in the trenches of the previous conflict.
ETA: what Boris is doing now is being ill. Churchill covered that too by having a heart attack during the second world war that was hushed up, including from the patient himself iirc.
2nd ETA: Churchill was one of several successive Prime Ministers who had fought in the Great War: Attlee, Eden and Macmillan were to follow.
Yes, I was listening to the story of his heart attack on the radio this morning. Very interesting. It was felt it had to be kept secret for morale purposes, to stop ours falling and theirs rising.
OK, perhaps the Churchill comparison is a stretch. But I do think this is more than "Boris being ill". He's the PM and he is ill with the virus we are fighting. So that is quite something. That he makes it is more important than it would be if, say, it was two months ago and he was battling a more conventional disease.
Yes, Boris will, God willing, be able to say that we are all in it together.
I have no issue with politicians celebrating wins and loses. We aren't talking about people losing their lives and yes an MP is technically out of a job, but they know all of this going into such a career and in reality most are able to use their experience and connections to find alternative employment.
I really have opened a can of worms here haven't I.
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
I'm sorry but there isn't a difference because they're two sides of the same coin.
Had Sturgeon been filmed responding to a Con Gain of Swinson's seat then yes it would have been just schaudenfreude but she wasn't, she was filmed celebrating an SNP gain. Her own gain.
Damn right she should celebrate that and if that's Sturgeon's loss then that's too bad for Sturgeon.
Philip, forget Sturgeon. It was a mistake on my part reacting too fast to another's post. I can't know whether she was celebrating winning or Swinson losing so it is not fair of me to comment as I did. It didn't look good at the time, but I think that is unfair on her. I can't possibly know what was in her mind.
What about the general principle of enjoying your victory but feeling sorry for your opponent (with the justifiable exception of an offensive opponent e.g. a cheat)?
Her winning/Swinson losng were the exact same thing. Swinson's defeat was an SNP gain, her gain. That is my point - celebrating your own side defeating your opponent is natural. Its like saying Liverpool shouldn't celebrate victory over Manchester United because its harsh on Manchester United. I'm sorry but victory is victory and celebrate it in the moment and commiserate afterwards.The celebrations come first naturally and she was caught on camera in the moment celebrating - she is human and good for her.
You can feel sorry for your opponent afterwards absolutely. At the moment though its entirely appropriate to enjoy your victory/their defeat which is the same thing.
Philip, but you have just said what I have been saying all along.
I have already admitted I got the Sturgeon thing wrong (it was just the appearance at the time that didn't look good).
Him posting it now when it's so out of date almost seems irresponsible. Trying to propagate a view that it is nothing to worry about.
I wouldn’t say so, because he is using the latest data we have. What it does tell us is we are well under par so far this year, going into the hazardous last round
The other team equalised in the last minute. There's a replay. We're going to be massively below full strength for the replay.
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guily, end of conversation. He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
Yes and he shouldn't be in jail.
But the Catholic Church remains a vile organisation whose only role on the matter should be profoundly apologising for covering up paedophilic abusers.
Half the foodbanks in the world are provided by the Catholic church and much of the great art and architecture and many of the schools and hospitals were also created by the Catholic church.
Pell was acquitted on appeal, if he was it suggests other accused may be too, apologies where guilty verdicts are given, certainly not where allegations are proven unfounded
Oh wow, the vastly wealthy and corrupt Catholic Church has provided some charity out of its vast golden fortune? Oh good for them, that makes covering up decades of paedophilia and hoarding golden treasuries perfectly reasonable - or not!
The allegations were not proven "unfounded". They were deemed not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" there's a difference.
I have no issue with politicians celebrating wins and loses. We aren't talking about people losing their lives and yes an MP is technically out of a job, but they know all of this going into such a career and in reality most are able to use their experience and connections to find alternative employment.
I really have opened a can of worms here haven't I.
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
I'm sorry but there isn't a difference because they're two sides of the same coin.
Had Sturgeon been filmed responding to a Con Gain of Swinson's seat then yes it would have been just schaudenfreude but she wasn't, she was filmed celebrating an SNP gain. Her own gain.
Damn right she should celebrate that and if that's Sturgeon's loss then that's too bad for Sturgeon.
Philip, forget Sturgeon. It was a mistake on my part reacting too fast to another's post. I can't know whether she was celebrating winning or Swinson losing so it is not fair of me to comment as I did. It didn't look good at the time, but I think that is unfair on her. I can't possibly know what was in her mind.
What about the general principle of enjoying your victory but feeling sorry for your opponent (with the justifiable exception of an offensive opponent e.g. a cheat)?
Her winning/Swinson losng were the exact same thing. Swinson's defeat was an SNP gain, her gain. That is my point - celebrating your own side defeating your opponent is natural. Its like saying Liverpool shouldn't celebrate victory over Manchester United because its harsh on Manchester United. I'm sorry but victory is victory and celebrate it in the moment and commiserate afterwards.The celebrations come first naturally and she was caught on camera in the moment celebrating - she is human and good for her.
You can feel sorry for your opponent afterwards absolutely. At the moment though its entirely appropriate to enjoy your victory/their defeat which is the same thing.
Philip, but you have just said what I have been saying all along.
I have already admitted I got the Sturgeon thing wrong (it was just the appearance at the time that didn't look good).
He was also a Newspaper correspondent in Sudan and South Africa where he became a POW and escaped from a Boer internment camp.
Yes, I know, I know. It was one of the great lives. Not saying otherwise. In fact it's hard to think of anybody else in modern history who combined such a thirst for action with so many intellectual pursuits, and top level politics, over such a prolonged period. Castro maybe?
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guily, end of conversation. He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
Yes and he shouldn't be in jail.
But the Catholic Church remains a vile organisation whose only role on the matter should be profoundly apologising for covering up paedophilic abusers.
Some of the people are vile. Not all of them...
The institution is and corrupt. The world would be a better place without it.
I think we may be sharing a few 'likes' if we get onto the subject of religion
As Anton Lesser is the voice of Thomas Cromwell, played Thomas Moore in the tv series and is also the voice of Shardlake he has become the sound of Tudor lawyer as much as Brian Glover became the image of rough bald-head northerner.
I don't believe in prayer but it'd be better to pray for the victims of paedophile priests and repentance for those who helped cover it up.
In this case though Cardinal Pell was found not guilty by the High court of Australia, hence I assume the tweet
They quashed the sentence because they said there was an element of doubt, yes.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
Pell was found not guily, end of conversation. He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
Yes and he shouldn't be in jail.
But the Catholic Church remains a vile organisation whose only role on the matter should be profoundly apologising for covering up paedophilic abusers.
Some of the people are vile. Not all of them...
The institution is and corrupt. The world would be a better place without it.
You may have a point there.. but one must not tar everyone with the same brush. I do not like the institution either.. it generally rules by fear.
Comments
We may ultimately emulate the various higher volume track and trace approaches of the east, but even there the first wave might only prove to be more stop-start, as Japan and Singapore's resumed upticks suggest.
I do however rather like the football tradition. It is rather polite. It is not like they are not trying to score. Enjoy but show respect. Rather nice.
She didn't rub it in anyone's face. She may have commisserated with Swinson afterwards. She'd almost certainly shake hands with her. But the video clip was her celebrating her own victory announced in that moment - good on her for celebrating her own parties victory being announced and her own colleague winning a seat.
Why shouldn't she celebrate that in that instant even if she's human with Swinson afterwards.
I know lots of political people who have been rather sorry to see a respected opponent lose their seat (not that sorry, but they've felt genuine sympathy). But I don't know any who wouldn't cheer more over a big scalp.
Why the Tory cheers over Balls? Why do people still talk about a "Portillo moment"? Why did Labour go (unsuccessfully) after Johnson and IDS in December? Why the (tastelessly named) Lib Dem "decapitation strategy" in 2001?
It's all a bit unedifying I suppose, but I for one am not going to be po-faced about it because it's human nature.
Good luck - hope it resolves quickly. In Guernsey the Medical Officer is reporting a range of differing symptoms among positive people. This might help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwLzAdriec0&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2h4kBmbNkuBDNQEIUIWVuZ6eyqUk0dPpHo8wPhJuOIElqJe2ZGvScpBWg
Trolling? A bit but not really. Serious point I'm making is that Boris's ratings will IMO go off the scale after this. It IS a War, this is clear, and he IS quite literally fighting the enemy as we speak. So imagine what might happen if and when he vanquishes it.
I'm already doing those and lying on my front.
https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1247517450351964163?s=21
If you watch the programme Churchill's First World War, there is some discussion of his fearlessness (perhaps a better word than courage) in the trenches of the previous conflict.
ETA: what Boris is doing now is being ill. Churchill covered that too by having a heart attack during the second world war that was hushed up, including from the patient himself iirc.
2nd ETA: Churchill was one of several successive Prime Ministers who had fought in the Great War: Attlee, Eden and Macmillan were to follow.
'Yeah, thousands of kids were abused and we've paid out multi millions, but this time we won one back for the team!'
Sigh! At no point did I say you shouldn't celebrate wining. On the contrary I said you should. Have the biggest celebration that you can. Yes celebrate.
OK I hope what I said is clear.
What I did say was that unless your opponent was reprehensible in some way then also be magnanimous in your victory.
There is a huge difference between celebrating your win and enjoying your opponents defeat.
I think it's only the subs that carry nukes, for quite some time now.
* Bomb that looks like any other bomb that falls off aircraft.
Had Sturgeon been filmed responding to a Con Gain of Swinson's seat then yes it would have been just schaudenfreude but she wasn't, she was filmed celebrating an SNP gain. Her own gain.
Damn right she should celebrate that and if that's Sturgeon's loss then that's too bad for Sturgeon.
And all through WW2 even though he was often in poor health he insisted on doing what was needed even when it was at the risk of his health and perhaps his life. As I said yesterday he had a heart attack the evening he made his speech to Congress in 1941.
For many conservative Catholics and Christians this was a big deal
https://twitter.com/holysmoke/status/1247347809117970439?s=20
https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1247441680808194048?s=20
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1247445351344287750?s=20
Thatcher and Blair were in some ways unlucky never to lose an election - part of the bile towards each is bitterness that they were never beaten in combat. Major and Brown are not loved by their opponents... but the attitude is much more mellow. (Albeit Blair is in an odd position as he also gets it from his own party).
Balls and Portillo also went on to do light entertainment TV shows. I'm not a massive fan of either Strictly or Portillo's train thing, but they aren't cut by the producer to make the person actively dislikable. They are being presented as a poor but game dancer, and a chap looking at scenery and doing soft interviews in a gaudy suit respectively. It's hard to hate that unless you're fundamentally misanthropic - you might not watch it, but that's a choice. Whereas as a politician, you are doing things people may well oppose strongly - that is literally the job.
The only response that vile organisation should have is to apologise profusely for covering up decades of paedophilic abuse, including possibly Pell's. Not claim people are out to get them.
What about the general principle of enjoying your victory but feeling sorry for your opponent (with the justifiable exception of an offensive opponent e.g. a cheat)?
Is quashing a verdict the same as "not guilty"? He's certainly not guilty under the law, but so was OJ Simpson.
He is as entitled to be considered an innocent man as Salmond is
In its two-page summary of the ruling, the High Court said that the jury "ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offenses for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/06/australia/australia-cardinal-pell-high-court-hnk-intl/index.html
Codenamed Exercise Cygnus, the three-day dry run for a pandemic carried out in October 2016 tested how NHS hospitals and other services would cope in the event of a major flu outbreak with a similar mortality rate to Covid-19.
The report on Cygnus’s findings were deemed too sensitive by Whitehall officials to be made public but the Sunday Telegraph has established that it found:
The NHS lacked adequate “surge capacity” and would require thousands more critical care beds to cope with a severe pandemic
Health bosses would need to “switch off” large parts of the NHS to cope with demand
Medics would need to adopt a “battlefield” mentality, with frail patients denied critical care
Mortuaries would be quickly overwhelmed
Potential failings in the supply of PPE to doctors and nurses
Officials even discussed preventing midwives from delivering newborn babies so they could be sent to care for the critically ill
Despite the failings exposed by Cygnus, the government never changed its strategic roadmap for a future pandemic, with the last update carried out in 2014.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exclusive-ministers-warned-nhs-could-not-cope-pandemic-three/
But the Catholic Church remains a vile organisation whose only role on the matter should be profoundly apologising for covering up paedophilic abusers.
Pell was acquitted on appeal, if he was it suggests other accused may be too, apologies where guilty verdicts are given, certainly not where allegations are proven unfounded
No I definitely wasn't supporting the Tories I was campaigning for the LDs and was celebrating myself that night at a party, but that moment was very moving for me both because of Twigg's win and Portillo's loss even though I supported neither.
You can feel sorry for your opponent afterwards absolutely. At the moment though its entirely appropriate to enjoy your victory/their defeat which is the same thing.
OK, perhaps the Churchill comparison is a stretch. But I do think this is more than "Boris being ill". He's the PM and he is ill with the virus we are fighting. So that is quite something. That he makes it is more important than it would be if, say, it was two months ago and he was battling a more conventional disease.
As party leader Sturgeon is responsible for every single SNP candidate not just her own seat (and she didn't even have one that night).
https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1247517450351964163?s=21 I wouldn’t say so, because he is using the latest data we have. What it does tell us is we are well under par so far this year, going into the hazardous last round
Why did he fly from Washington to Guam to effing swear at them and blame China? Because this Captain INSULTED OUR PRESIDENT! You can't point to actual issues you actually have, thats a political attack that is. And its the same here. Loons on Facebook attacking a GMB report highlighting medics highlighting the lack of PPE. Its just a political motivated attack on
OUR PRESIDENTPrime Minister. Because of who said it and how, not because what they said isn't true. Now the BMA have come out saying the same thing the "its the GMB must be a political attack" mob are doing HYUFD-scale backflips.Same with this guy. Once you deny the facts you have to do bigger and bigger backflips to try and pretend that what is happening isn't happening. Not having PPE on your ship isn't as scary as Hypersonic Missiles. Not having tests for staff in your hospitals is the fault of the chemical industry. Whatever. Doesn't matter. Make it up. Deflect. Divert. Lets all clap for Boris at 8pm. All hail Trump.
Countries like the UK that have closed schools to help stop the spread of coronavirus should ask hard questions about whether this is now the right policy, says one team of scientists.
The University College London team says keeping pupils off has little impact, even with other lockdown measures.
But a scientist whose work has informed the UK strategy insists school closures play an important role.
The government has said it will review its coronavirus policies after Easter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52180783
Or rather, third thoughts, given the initial plan was to keep schools open.
I have already admitted I got the Sturgeon thing wrong (it was just the appearance at the time that didn't look good).
I have no issue with your last paragraph.
The allegations were not proven "unfounded". They were deemed not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" there's a difference.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gbff/episodes/player
As Anton Lesser is the voice of Thomas Cromwell, played Thomas Moore in the tv series and is also the voice of Shardlake he has become the sound of Tudor lawyer as much as Brian Glover became the image of rough bald-head northerner.
https://twitter.com/gavinjones10/status/1247527790611554311?s=09