Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
I doubt it, I think a marketing campaign saying to download this to keep you safe and "protect the NHS" along with co-operation from social media etc would surely be sufficient to get that percentage take up.
Advertise it across Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, Instagram etc and on TV etc and quite quickly the takeup will be up there.
1) No where in the bbc article does it mention 80% 2) I don't believe they will get anywhere near 80% and of those that do install it a lot will not realise they need to have bluetooth on
I think they will get close to 80% and that the app will prompt those that do install it to turn on Bluetooth if it is off. Apps already do that and its not rocket science to get an app to check if Bluetooth is off and tell you to turn it on.
and then they will turn it back off when they realise it eats their battery
I doubt it. If people are bothered enough to install the app then I doubt they'll be that extremely concerned about the battery. Especially if you think they "will not realise" they need bluetooth on then they may not realise the bluetooth affects their battery.
You're expecting them to simultaneously be tech literate and tech illiterate. Bizarre.
Bluetooth Low Energy advertisements use a tiny amount of power. Beacons and trackers, which use the same stuff, can be run from coin cells. It really shouldn't be an issue.
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
Yes - my biggest reservation is that the thing won't work very well for its intended purpose.
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
..or not use a medical device manufacturer, but ask a vacuum cleaner or digger manufacturer to make a ventilator perhaps? I am sure if Mike the mechanic was a vocal supporter of Brexit he could be sure to get some good publicity at the very least
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
Which is why it has to be made compulsory. ie you don't legally leave your house without it. Track and trace is either effective in controlling infections or it's not. By effective, I mean avoiding both permanent lockdown and mass death. If it's not effective, ditch it and accept death or lockdown. If it is effective everyone needs to be using it.
I have no idea if the app is going to be useful but as far as compulsion is concerned there's a middle way something like: - End the lockdown a couple of days early for people with the app - Offer to send law enforcement to do spot-checks at private venues like shopping centres that make a policy of requiring the app.
In practice strong enforcement may not be very practical, but people won't really be sure in advance that it won't be, so what this does is to flip the least-bother default from "don't install" to "install", while still allowing people who are worried about it to opt out.
Too much compulsion is probably a bad idea, as if you get people really annoyed they can probably mess with it and spam it with bad data, but if you can get the apathetic as well as the tracking enthusiasts that's almost the entire population. It's a game of averages, you don't have to get *everyone*.
Thinking about this, I think entry points into buildings and buses are where you would control this. People would use the app for the convenience, like they are happy to show ID to get on an easyJet flight.
Also people need time to warm up to what the app is trying to achieve and to understand the alternatives. If they agree (a) this is the only way to avoid permanent lockdown or mass death and (b) the app works, they are likely to come round without heavy-handed compulsion.
So you get to Tesco's find your mobile battery is dead or you left it at home. Sorry sir you can't come in. As I pointed out only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone. When people are told they can't shop because of the three reasons above the grumbling will start and continue to grow
That's roughly what Tesco will say. The other point, which hasn't been discussed here so far, is that the majority using the app won't be at all happy with possibly infected non-app users breathing into their faces at the checkouts.
Nothing makes an app user non infected they merely don't update their status
The app should show if you or anyone you have been in contact with has been identified as infectious. If the app shows both that you and contacts have no identified infections and you have been keeping the app on, that's good enough to get into Tescos.
Your other point about not everyone having access to the app for essential shopping etc is valid. Maybe those not using the app supply Tesco with their name and address and this gets uploaded for checking each time. Or the app is only compulsory for non essential services such as bars and workplaces. The detail needs to be worked out.
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
And then discovering Mike is off so the work is being done by an apprentice who has been there 6 weeks and can just about follow the manual.
I suspect there are going to be a fair few gotchas in the NHS solution that will reduce it's usefulness.
Well the biggest red flag is they had to get GCHQ to "find" a loophole to force IoS to do something that is supposedly not possible (cough cough, digs out an exploit they already use as part of their spying toolbox). It is in regards to control the bluetooth polling, so that it doesn't eat all your battery up.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
I doubt it, I think a marketing campaign saying to download this to keep you safe and "protect the NHS" along with co-operation from social media etc would surely be sufficient to get that percentage take up.
Advertise it across Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, Instagram etc and on TV etc and quite quickly the takeup will be up there.
1) No where in the bbc article does it mention 80%
No, there was another article which you were too lazy to look for yourself. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896 As someone so disturbed by the whole idea, I'd have though you might want to know what you're opposing...
Well as you cited an article and said 80% it was natural to assume it came from the cited article
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
..or not use a medical device manufacturer, but ask a vacuum cleaner or digger manufacturer to make a ventilator perhaps? I am sure if Mike the mechanic was a vocal supporter of Brexit he could be sure to get some good publicity at the very least
It is a shame you do not realise the government got a large number of goods produced by those who changed their manufacturing to what was required. Getting companies who don't normally to produce medical devices and PPE has tremendously increased our domestic production and supply of what was required.
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
Which is a red flag in itself. Why do they want a centralised system. I wonder what extra abilities that might give them.
I suspect it gives them the ability to ask you where you have been and then match it with possible cases even if you haven't used the app.
You can see the logic behind it but it's not being explained which is why people are against it.
On that basis Lord Longford would have had editions of Razzle and Wet & Willing proudly displayed on his bookshelf. Which of course he might have done.
Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
I doubt it, I think a marketing campaign saying to download this to keep you safe and "protect the NHS" along with co-operation from social media etc would surely be sufficient to get that percentage take up.
Advertise it across Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, Instagram etc and on TV etc and quite quickly the takeup will be up there.
1) No where in the bbc article does it mention 80%
No, there was another article which you were too lazy to look for yourself. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896 As someone so disturbed by the whole idea, I'd have though you might want to know what you're opposing...
Well as you cited an article and said 80% it was natural to assume it came from the cited article
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
And then discovering Mike is off so the work is being done by an apprentice who has been there 6 weeks and can just about follow the manual.
I suspect there are going to be a fair few gotchas in the NHS solution that will reduce it's usefulness.
Well the biggest red flag is they had to get GCHQ to "find" a loophole to force IoS to do something that is supposedly not possible (cough cough, digs out an exploit they already use as part of their spying toolbox). It is in regards to control the bluetooth polling, so that it doesn't eat all your battery up.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
The Gove book farrago reminds me of the film They Were Not Divided, when the two heroes are pulled up on their haircuts during inspection. There had to be something in the bookshelf.
It shows the complete lack of depth of thought of the attack. Shallow as a puddle.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
Which is why it has to be made compulsory. ie you don't legally leave your house without it. Track and trace is either effective in controlling infections or it's not. By effective, I mean avoiding both permanent lockdown and mass death. If it's not effective, ditch it and accept death or lockdown. If it is effective everyone needs to be using it.
I have no idea if the app is going to be useful but as far as compulsion is concerned there's a middle way something like: - End the lockdown a couple of days early for people with the app - Offer to send law enforcement to do spot-checks at private venues like shopping centres that make a policy of requiring the app.
In practice strong enforcement may not be very practical, but people won't really be sure in advance that it won't be, so what this does is to flip the least-bother default from "don't install" to "install", while still allowing people who are worried about it to opt out.
Too much compulsion is probably a bad idea, as if you get people really annoyed they can probably mess with it and spam it with bad data, but if you can get the apathetic as well as the tracking enthusiasts that's almost the entire population. It's a game of averages, you don't have to get *everyone*.
Thinking about this, I think entry points into buildings and buses are where you would control this. People would use the app for the convenience, like they are happy to show ID to get on an easyJet flight.
Also people need time to warm up to what the app is trying to achieve and to understand the alternatives. If they agree (a) this is the only way to avoid permanent lockdown or mass death and (b) the app works, they are likely to come round without heavy-handed compulsion.
So you get to Tesco's find your mobile battery is dead or you left it at home. Sorry sir you can't come in. As I pointed out only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone. When people are told they can't shop because of the three reasons above the grumbling will start and continue to grow
That's roughly what Tesco will say. The other point, which hasn't been discussed here so far, is that the majority using the app won't be at all happy with possibly infected non-app users breathing into their faces at the checkouts.
Nothing makes an app user non infected they merely don't update their status
The app should show if you or anyone you have been in contact with has been identified as infectious. If the app shows both that you and contacts have no identified infections and you have been keeping the app on, that's good enough to get into Tescos.
Your other point about not everyone having access to the app for essential shopping etc is valid. Maybe those not using the app supply Tesco with their name and address and this gets uploaded for checking each time. Or the app is only compulsory for non essential services such as bars and workplaces. The detail needs to be worked out.
Nope all I will do is write my own app that generates a qr code that is compliant. I am sure the internet will be awash with them
Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
I doubt it, I think a marketing campaign saying to download this to keep you safe and "protect the NHS" along with co-operation from social media etc would surely be sufficient to get that percentage take up.
Advertise it across Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, Instagram etc and on TV etc and quite quickly the takeup will be up there.
1) No where in the bbc article does it mention 80% 2) I don't believe they will get anywhere near 80% and of those that do install it a lot will not realise they need to have bluetooth on
I think they will get close to 80% and that the app will prompt those that do install it to turn on Bluetooth if it is off. Apps already do that and its not rocket science to get an app to check if Bluetooth is off and tell you to turn it on.
and then they will turn it back off when they realise it eats their battery
Its not 1999 anymore. Modern Bluetooth is incredibly battery efficient.
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
South Korea take non-compliance very seriously. They are looking to move to tracking bracelets for all those who are positive and should be isolating...this is after a few people deliberately left their phones at home and went out.
Curious how some who praise South Korea's handling of this and castigate Britain's scream bloody murder when it is suggested the Tory British government might do something even less intrusive...
I am only imagine the outcry if the UK government suggested tracking bracelets say for those arriving from abroad....RACIST, XENOPHOBIC, etc
Tracking? I want them locked away for 14-21 days first.
What are you? Some fascist xenophobic racist Tory South Korean?
Funny this absurd meme by Remainers that his new deal was supposedly both "worse" from their perspective and "a surrender" while Leavers are happy with it.
If it was such a surrender then presumably it would be a better deal from the Remainers perspective yet I've not seen any Remainers say it was better due to all the "surrender". Its almost like you're talking bollocks out of both sides of your mouth.
What a totally bizarre post. First of all you seem to think that the world is divided into 'Remainers' and 'Leavers', with each category completely defining theirt views on all aspects of the problem. Secondly you seem to have the completely bonkers idea that some one who voted Remain - on the basis that on balance it was better to be in the EU than not, especially given the inability of the Leave campaigns to show how Brexit might actually work - therefore automatically thinks that poor negotiation on Brexit with the EU is a good thing.
Of course, it is true that the Boris transition deal was simply May's transition deal with the backstop replaced by the EU's original proposal on Ireland, which all sides in the UK, including the current PM, rightly said at the time was unacceptable.
I predict masks are going to be the new bog rolls in a month or two. And unlike bog roll, which was a distribution issue, there will be a long term shortage problem.
I note that both Remainers and Leavers on here think Hard Brexit is coming on 1st Jan 2021. I disagree. Replacing frictionless trade with a Burkino Faso barebones WTO arrangement does not become less insane on account of our economy being in the shit anyway due to Covid-19. Quite the opposite in fact. It becomes not so much insane as utterly stark raving bonkers. And IMO Johnson is not that. He would still do it, of course, if it worked politically for him. Or if he had to to save his skin. But it wouldn't and he doesn't. He has the political capital to do what is quite obviously the sensible thing - extend the Transition. Which I believe he will.
What will it cost the UK to extend the transition? Without knowing this cost neither you nor anyone else can come to a conclusion of what is best to do because a cost-benefit analysis cannot be run.
For me, I`d support a longer transition only if it involves no (or only minor) further costs to the exchequer. I`d especially oppose it if extension could put us on the hook for the financial bailouts that Spain and Italy are currently hankering for.
Yes that is how it should be approached - costs v benefits.
What did you vote in 2016 btw? Don't think I've ever seen you say.
Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Better Strategies for Containing COVID-19 Epidemics --- A Study of 25 Countries via an Extended Varying Coefficient SEIR Model https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081232v1 We evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 control strategies of 25 countries which have endured more than four weeks of community infections. With an extended SEIR model that allows infections in both the exposed and infected states, the key epidemic parameters are estimated from each country's data, which facilitate the evaluation and cross-country comparison. It is found quicker control measures significantly reduce the average reproduction numbers and shorten the time length to infection peaks. If the swift control measures of Korea and China were implemented, average reductions of 88% in the confirmed cases and 80% in deaths would had been attained for the other 23 countries from start to April 10. Effects of earlier or delayed interventions in the US and the UK are experimented which show at least 75% (29%) less infections and deaths can be attained for the US (the UK) under a Five-Day Earlier experiment. The impacts of two removal regimes (Korea and Italy) on the total infection and death tolls on the other countries are compared with the naturally forecast ones, which suggest there are still ample opportunity for countries to reduce the final death numbers by improving the removal process.
These are the types of people that sadly now hold positions of influence in the modern Conservative Party thanks to Bozo and his cabal. If this is true it is an absolute disgrace.
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
Indeed. This is where you want to go the tried and tested route.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Do you know what the size of the prison estate is?
I note that both Remainers and Leavers on here think Hard Brexit is coming on 1st Jan 2021. I disagree. Replacing frictionless trade with a Burkino Faso barebones WTO arrangement does not become less insane on account of our economy being in the shit anyway due to Covid-19. Quite the opposite in fact. It becomes not so much insane as utterly stark raving bonkers. And IMO Johnson is not that. He would still do it, of course, if it worked politically for him. Or if he had to to save his skin. But it wouldn't and he doesn't. He has the political capital to do what is quite obviously the sensible thing - extend the Transition. Which I believe he will.
What will it cost the UK to extend the transition? Without knowing this cost neither you nor anyone else can come to a conclusion of what is best to do because a cost-benefit analysis cannot be run.
For me, I`d support a longer transition only if it involves no (or only minor) further costs to the exchequer. I`d especially oppose it if extension could put us on the hook for the financial bailouts that Spain and Italy are currently hankering for.
Yes that is how it should be approached - costs v benefits.
What did you vote in 2016 btw? Don't think I've ever seen you say.
Remain. Very much a reluctant remainer. No love for it - pragmatic decision.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't close that exploit, as an app should only be able to make requests for background activity not force it by using an exploit. As soon as the NHS release the app that exploit will be in the wild, and Apple won't want others using it.
I predict masks are going to be the new bog rolls in a month or two. And unlike bog roll, which was a distribution issue, there will be a long term shortage problem.
When it comes to criticism of business leaders during this crisis. Dyson stuck up £25 million of his own money to try and solve a problem....where as...
Sports Direct and House of Fraser ‘secretly pressured furloughed store managers to work once a week’
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Do you know what the size of the prison estate is?
If we can build new temporary hospitals in a few weeks we can easily create a few more prisons.
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
He's certainly joined the ranks of right wing snowflakes most enthusiastically.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
What does it matter what Boris' views on gay marriage and abortion and drugs are, whether he is socially liberal on those issues is irrelevant in terms of Brexit.
In terms of Brexit though Boris has not only delivered it but committed to end free movement and replace it with a points system and go to WTO terms if required, not merely leave the EU and stay in the single market and/or the customs union
I am shocked to hear that viewing figures for PEwithJoe were up significantly this morning. I have a feeling the viewing demographic might have changed so what though.
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
How are the ghastly Goves and their book choices being suppressed or prohibited? One can hardly move for their self publicising guff.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
Preventing somebody from saying something is censorship. Judging them for saying it is not censorship. Preventing somebody from reading a book is censorship. Judging them for reading it is not censorship.
It's incredible that the people claiming to be on the side of openness are simultaneously thought-policing by saying I'm not allowed to form a judgement of somebody based on their behaviour.
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
How are the ghastly Goves and their book choices being suppressed? One can hardly move for their self publicising guff.
Because arguing that people should not own books attempts to make their sale and ownership impossible, and to prevent circulation of the ideas. It's not censorship as in a legal ban, but it is an attempt to remove them from discourse.
Funny this absurd meme by Remainers that his new deal was supposedly both "worse" from their perspective and "a surrender" while Leavers are happy with it.
If it was such a surrender then presumably it would be a better deal from the Remainers perspective yet I've not seen any Remainers say it was better due to all the "surrender". Its almost like you're talking bollocks out of both sides of your mouth.
What a totally bizarre post. First of all you seem to think that the world is divided into 'Remainers' and 'Leavers', with each category completely defining theirt views on all aspects of the problem. Secondly you seem to have the completely bonkers idea that some one who voted Remain - on the basis that on balance it was better to be in the EU than not, especially given the inability of the Leave campaigns to show how Brexit might actually work - therefore automatically thinks that poor negotiation on Brexit with the EU is a good thing.
Of course, it is true that the Boris transition deal was simply May's transition deal with the backstop replaced by the EU's original proposal on Ireland, which all sides in the UK, including the current PM, rightly said at the time was unacceptable.
Firstly I am not ascribing that to all Remainers (which I should have called former Remainers), I am ascribing it to those who simultaneously claim that the UK surrendered and that the UK got a worse deal.
The original proposal on Ireland was amended to include requiring Stormont's ongoing consent which was not originally there. That dealt with the issue as to why it was not originally acceptable.
Rather than seeking to amend the original proposal to require Stormont's consent May sought to make it apply to the entirety of the UK. That made an unacceptable proposal worse not better. Johnson reversed it back to being NI specific (which was better than May applying it to all of us) and then negotiated Stormont's consent which made it acceptable.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
A majority support fining or jailing those who break lockdown, fining or jailing those who refuse to wear an app post lockdown and who develop symptoms is little different
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
Because he is a social liberal fooling his Hard Brexit base. Or possibly devoid of core belief and thus fooling all who support him.
As per my original post. Which is looking impeccable.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
A majority support fining or jailing those who break lockdown, fining or jailing those who refuse to wear an app post lockdown and who develop symptoms is little different
Pathetic.
Apps must be voluntary. A compulsory app is meaningless since you can disable it as easily as turning bluetooth off. You are bonkers.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Do you know what the size of the prison estate is?
If we can build new temporary hospitals in a few weeks we can easily create a few more prisons.
Loving the HYUFD Conservatism. You don't belong in my party with views like that.
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
Because he is a social liberal fooling his Hard Brexit base. Or possibly devoid of core belief and thus fooling all who support him.
As per my original post. Which is looking impeccable.
Again Hard Brexit is not a social liberal v conservative issue.
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
Your argument amounts to "You shouldn't read it yourself - just rely on others to do it for you". Which I do not accept.
Going up the chain of sources to understand how an argument is constructed is part of critical thinking.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
A majority support fining or jailing those who break lockdown, fining or jailing those who refuse to wear an app post lockdown and who develop symptoms is little different
Don't believe it for a moment, most might grumble at their neighbours antics only a small percentage would call the police on them which is what support would entail.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't close that exploit, as an app should only be able to make requests for background activity not force it by using an exploit. As soon as the NHS release the app that exploit will be in the wild, and Apple won't want others using it.
If the Apple version works as has been suggested, by using an exploit in IOS, it's not going to even make it as far as the App Store.
The Android version will have different problems, due to the huge number of device types and software versions out there there will be millions of phones on which it doesn't work correctly, if it works at all.
Not to mention the huge privacy implications, especially anything involving compulsion by government or effective compulsion by private organisations.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Do you know what the size of the prison estate is?
If we can build new temporary hospitals in a few weeks we can easily create a few more prisons.
Loving the HYUFD Conservatism. You don't belong in my party with views like that.
In relation to Conor Burns, do we know if this is subject to a Police investigation?
A seven day Parliamentary suspension doesn't put his seat in danger, but this does appear at least to raise a question of blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.
It may have been looked at and determined he's okay - blackmail is fairly tricky as you have to show the defendant didn't believe the means used were a proper means of reinforcing the demand (it clearly wasn't a proper means, but it isn't a "reasonable person" test - the question is whether Burns knew it was improper). But, if it hasn't been investigated this could have a way to run.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
How are the ghastly Goves and their book choices being suppressed? One can hardly move for their self publicising guff.
Because arguing that people should not own books attempts to make their sale and ownership impossible, and to prevent circulation of the ideas. It's not censorship as in a legal ban, but it is an attempt to remove them from discourse.
So if my friend is going to buy a book and I say "Oh, don't read that one, it's got very bad reviews and a lot of the content has been debunked." I'm engaging in censorship because I'm hurting its circulation? What if I give a bad review of a movie or TV show, am I censoring it?
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is not a real conservative.
He is a quasi Ukipper an IDS and Trump supporter
He is not a main stream compassionate conservative and his views are one of a dinosaur
And his retort will be to tell me to join labour or the lib dems as I voted for Blair twice
Sadly for him I am going nowhere and as a member I will fight to reject his unacceptable views.
Fortunately Boris is a liberal compassionate conservative and as long as he is I will support the party
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
How are the ghastly Goves and their book choices being suppressed? One can hardly move for their self publicising guff.
Because arguing that people should not own books attempts to make their sale and ownership impossible, and to prevent circulation of the ideas. It's not censorship as in a legal ban, but it is an attempt to remove them from discourse.
'How dare you make any criticism of me , it's like being in Stalin's Russia.'
You people are the equivalent of those Oxford students voting to ban hateful material, except they have the excuse that they're daft kids for being thin skinned snowflakes.
Right then, as you've all helped secure the site, you deserve a treat! So let's get heavy duty with the moth du jour this week. Hawk moths!
Moth du Jour: Lime Hawkmoth. One of the first to arrive each year, although nowhere is it common.
That photo is excellent - is it yours ? I've been fond of hawk moths since encountering an elephant hawk moth as a child. Impressive beasts.
Whoa. Still looking forward to some sexy beast like that in my neck of woods (Northern Caledonia). Still freezing up here overnight. Tried the trap a few nights ago and got just two sad-looking noctuids. (Hebrew Character and Early Grey). Better days to come....
In relation to Conor Burns, do we know if this is subject to a Police investigation?
A seven day Parliamentary suspension doesn't put his seat in danger, but this does appear at least to raise a question of blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.
It may have been looked at and determined he's okay - blackmail is fairly tricky as you have to show the defendant didn't believe the means used were a proper means of reinforcing the demand (it clearly wasn't a proper means, but it isn't a "reasonable person" test - the question is whether Burns knew it was improper). But, if it hasn't been investigated this could have a way to run.
Astonishingly Burns threatened the Commissioner for parliamentary standards that the disputed allegations would enter the public domain if she continued her investigation. She doesn't seem impressed.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
Its only easy to debunk something if someone else has already put effort in to debunk it. Which Gove has done, he has been involved in things like that.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
A majority support fining or jailing those who break lockdown, fining or jailing those who refuse to wear an app post lockdown and who develop symptoms is little different
You get worse by the minute and frankly are becoming an embarrassment to our party
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
I predict masks are going to be the new bog rolls in a month or two. And unlike bog roll, which was a distribution issue, there will be a long term shortage problem.
Last week I received a catalogue through the post which offered packs of 30 masks but the limit was 5 packs,
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
Your argument amounts to "You shouldn't read it yourself - just rely on others to do it for you". Which I do not accept.
Going up the chain of sources to understand how an argument is constructed is part of critical thinking.
So if I came at you with some creationist arguments right now, would you go look them up on, say, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , spend a little time cross-referencing on google to check there's some degree of consensus, then respond? Or would you be completely paralyzed because the relevant papers- and the papers they cite, and the ones they cite, and so on- are likely to be paywalled?
In relation to Conor Burns, do we know if this is subject to a Police investigation?
A seven day Parliamentary suspension doesn't put his seat in danger, but this does appear at least to raise a question of blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.
It may have been looked at and determined he's okay - blackmail is fairly tricky as you have to show the defendant didn't believe the means used were a proper means of reinforcing the demand (it clearly wasn't a proper means, but it isn't a "reasonable person" test - the question is whether Burns knew it was improper). But, if it hasn't been investigated this could have a way to run.
Astonishingly Burns threatened the Commissioner for parliamentary standards that the disputed allegations would enter the public domain if she continued her investigation. She doesn't seem impressed.
Conor Burns is an arrogant prat. He stood as parliamentary candidate for Eaatleigh twice and got stuffed both times. As soon as he was replaced the tories won the seat.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
Was Hyufd not a tory councillor at one point. Would be easy enough to work out his real identity if they wanted
What is the advice he has taken from the house authorities that he refers to? That should be published PDQ.
If I was cynical I suspect he said “can I raise it in the house” and they thought for about 12 seconds and then said “don’t be so f*****g stupid it’s a conflict of interests”
So he used it as a threat, even though it is an empty one.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
20% might cover the conscientious objectors at this stage (it will grow quickly once the media start covering it in their usual negative way), but there's going to be at least 20% more who don't have the right hardware to make the app work even if they want to use it - and that latter group will include many of our parents and poorer friends who face discrimination for not having the latest smartphone. The Human Rights cases could go on for decades.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't close that exploit, as an app should only be able to make requests for background activity not force it by using an exploit. As soon as the NHS release the app that exploit will be in the wild, and Apple won't want others using it.
If the Apple version works as has been suggested, by using an exploit in IOS, it's not going to even make it as far as the App Store.
The Android version will have different problems, due to the huge number of device types and software versions out there there will be millions of phones on which it doesn't work correctly, if it works at all.
Not to mention the huge privacy implications, especially anything involving compulsion by government or effective compulsion by private organisations.
It will work on Android phones running Android 5.0 and above, which is about 95% of phones currently using the Google Play Store, and you need BLE support which I would expect to be almost as widely supported as it predates Android 5.0. This applies to the Google/Apple API, I assume that the NHS app would have similar requirements.
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
Your argument amounts to "You shouldn't read it yourself - just rely on others to do it for you". Which I do not accept.
Going up the chain of sources to understand how an argument is constructed is part of critical thinking.
So if I came at you with some creationist arguments right now, would you go look them up on, say, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , spend a little time cross-referencing on google to check there's some degree of consensus, then respond? Or would you be completely paralyzed because the relevant papers- and the papers they cite, and the ones they cite, and so on- are likely to be paywalled?
The talk origins posts are only able to be there because people have put time and effort into doing them - same as the papers they cite etc - I think you will find those who have done that have been willing and able to read the creationist nonsense in order to rebut it.
Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
I doubt it, I think a marketing campaign saying to download this to keep you safe and "protect the NHS" along with co-operation from social media etc would surely be sufficient to get that percentage take up.
Advertise it across Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, Instagram etc and on TV etc and quite quickly the takeup will be up there.
1) No where in the bbc article does it mention 80% 2) I don't believe they will get anywhere near 80% and of those that do install it a lot will not realise they need to have bluetooth on
I think they will get close to 80% and that the app will prompt those that do install it to turn on Bluetooth if it is off. Apps already do that and its not rocket science to get an app to check if Bluetooth is off and tell you to turn it on.
and then they will turn it back off when they realise it eats their battery
I doubt it. If people are bothered enough to install the app then I doubt they'll be that extremely concerned about the battery. Especially if you think they "will not realise" they need bluetooth on then they may not realise the bluetooth affects their battery.
You're expecting them to simultaneously be tech literate and tech illiterate. Bizarre.
Bluetooth Low Energy advertisements use a tiny amount of power. Beacons and trackers, which use the same stuff, can be run from coin cells. It really shouldn't be an issue.
I’m not having Bluetooth turned on on my phone. Why would I want to advertise my presence.
Nah, Bell Curve is basically like a primary source these days. I think it would especially be useful for a education secretary to read as he's going to be presented with arguments taken wholesale from it.
Indeed Gove has given speeches attacking "Bell Curve" thinking.
In relation to Conor Burns, do we know if this is subject to a Police investigation?
A seven day Parliamentary suspension doesn't put his seat in danger, but this does appear at least to raise a question of blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.
It may have been looked at and determined he's okay - blackmail is fairly tricky as you have to show the defendant didn't believe the means used were a proper means of reinforcing the demand (it clearly wasn't a proper means, but it isn't a "reasonable person" test - the question is whether Burns knew it was improper). But, if it hasn't been investigated this could have a way to run.
Astonishingly Burns threatened the Commissioner for parliamentary standards that the disputed allegations would enter the public domain if she continued her investigation. She doesn't seem impressed.
Conor Burns is an arrogant prat. He stood as parliamentary candidate for Eaatleigh twice and got stuffed both times. As soon as he was replaced the tories won the seat.
What is the advice he has taken from the house authorities that he refers to? That should be published PDQ.
If I was cynical I suspect he said “can I raise it in the house” and they thought for about 12 seconds and then said “don’t be so f*****g stupid it’s a conflict of interests”
So he used it as a threat, even though it is an empty one.
Or he said something vague like "a constituent has brought this concern to me, can I raise it" and they said "yes" and he never declared his personal interest.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't close that exploit, as an app should only be able to make requests for background activity not force it by using an exploit. As soon as the NHS release the app that exploit will be in the wild, and Apple won't want others using it.
If the Apple version works as has been suggested, by using an exploit in IOS, it's not going to even make it as far as the App Store.
The Android version will have different problems, due to the huge number of device types and software versions out there there will be millions of phones on which it doesn't work correctly, if it works at all.
Not to mention the huge privacy implications, especially anything involving compulsion by government or effective compulsion by private organisations.
It will work on Android phones running Android 5.0 and above, which is about 95% of phones currently using the Google Play Store, and you need BLE support which I would expect to be almost as widely supported as it predates Android 5.0.
What makes you think it will work on 5.0, apparently the app the americans have only works on 6.0 onwards
Comments
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1257255091121381376
Your other point about not everyone having access to the app for essential shopping etc is valid. Maybe those not using the app supply Tesco with their name and address and this gets uploaded for checking each time. Or the app is only compulsory for non essential services such as bars and workplaces. The detail needs to be worked out.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
From the new article you have cited for @Philip_Thompson
"On 20 March, Singapore became one of the first countries to deploy a voluntary contact-tracing app, TraceTogether.
But only about 12% of the population installed it"
good luck with your 80%
You can see the logic behind it but it's not being explained which is why people are against it.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
It shows the complete lack of depth of thought of the attack. Shallow as a puddle.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Of course, it is true that the Boris transition deal was simply May's transition deal with the backstop replaced by the EU's original proposal on Ireland, which all sides in the UK, including the current PM, rightly said at the time was unacceptable.
Not acceptable behaviour
What did you vote in 2016 btw? Don't think I've ever seen you say.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081232v1
We evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 control strategies of 25 countries which have endured more than four weeks of community infections. With an extended SEIR model that allows infections in both the exposed and infected states, the key epidemic parameters are estimated from each country's data, which facilitate the evaluation and cross-country comparison. It is found quicker control measures significantly reduce the average reproduction numbers and shorten the time length to infection peaks. If the swift control measures of Korea and China were implemented, average reductions of 88% in the confirmed cases and 80% in deaths would had been attained for the other 23 countries from start to April 10. Effects of earlier or delayed interventions in the US and the UK are experimented which show at least 75% (29%) less infections and deaths can be attained for the US (the UK) under a Five-Day Earlier experiment. The impacts of two removal regimes (Korea and Italy) on the total infection and death tolls on the other countries are compared with the naturally forecast ones, which suggest there are still ample opportunity for countries to reduce the final death numbers by improving the removal process.
We mustn't let it happen.
Sports Direct and House of Fraser ‘secretly pressured furloughed store managers to work once a week’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8283769/Sports-Direct-House-Fraser-secretly-pressured-furloughed-store-managers-work-week.html
a large percentage support the license fee for example
a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
In terms of Brexit though Boris has not only delivered it but committed to end free movement and replace it with a points system and go to WTO terms if required, not merely leave the EU and stay in the single market and/or the customs union
Preventing somebody from reading a book is censorship. Judging them for reading it is not censorship.
It's incredible that the people claiming to be on the side of openness are simultaneously thought-policing by saying I'm not allowed to form a judgement of somebody based on their behaviour.
The original proposal on Ireland was amended to include requiring Stormont's ongoing consent which was not originally there. That dealt with the issue as to why it was not originally acceptable.
Rather than seeking to amend the original proposal to require Stormont's consent May sought to make it apply to the entirety of the UK. That made an unacceptable proposal worse not better. Johnson reversed it back to being NI specific (which was better than May applying it to all of us) and then negotiated Stormont's consent which made it acceptable.
As per my original post. Which is looking impeccable.
Apps must be voluntary. A compulsory app is meaningless since you can disable it as easily as turning bluetooth off. You are bonkers.
Going up the chain of sources to understand how an argument is constructed is part of critical thinking.
The Android version will have different problems, due to the huge number of device types and software versions out there there will be millions of phones on which it doesn't work correctly, if it works at all.
Not to mention the huge privacy implications, especially anything involving compulsion by government or effective compulsion by private organisations.
A seven day Parliamentary suspension doesn't put his seat in danger, but this does appear at least to raise a question of blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.
It may have been looked at and determined he's okay - blackmail is fairly tricky as you have to show the defendant didn't believe the means used were a proper means of reinforcing the demand (it clearly wasn't a proper means, but it isn't a "reasonable person" test - the question is whether Burns knew it was improper). But, if it hasn't been investigated this could have a way to run.
He is a quasi Ukipper an IDS and Trump supporter
He is not a main stream compassionate conservative and his views are one of a dinosaur
And his retort will be to tell me to join labour or the lib dems as I voted for Blair twice
Sadly for him I am going nowhere and as a member I will fight to reject his unacceptable views.
Fortunately Boris is a liberal compassionate conservative and as long as he is I will support the party
You people are the equivalent of those Oxford students voting to ban hateful material, except they have the excuse that they're daft kids for being thin skinned snowflakes.
Still looking forward to some sexy beast like that in my neck of woods (Northern Caledonia). Still freezing up here overnight. Tried the trap a few nights ago and got just two sad-looking noctuids. (Hebrew Character and Early Grey). Better days to come....
https://twitter.com/d_spiegel/status/1257218274418405376
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
So he used it as a threat, even though it is an empty one.
Absolute state of the debate on one bookshelf.
Indeed Gove has given speeches attacking "Bell Curve" thinking.
I really can't get over the David Irving though.