Howdy, Stranger!

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

Undefined discussion subject.

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 2020 in General
«13456

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615
    Agree, suspending the account might happen but time is too short.

    If you're wondering why Twitter are finally reacting to Trump continually breaking their Terms of Service, see the engagement numbers. Trump's not doing as much for Twitter as he used to be, and vice versa.

    https://www.axios.com/president-trump-tweets-engagement-4c6067a8-734d-4184-984a-d5c9151aa339.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    eadric said:

    Nah. This is the story. A white guy lynched on tv, live, in a video which has gained a million viewers in 30 minutes, and which will now explode. It’s as bad as the original Floyd video.

    RIP both of them

    https://twitter.com/elijahschaffer/status/1266925493384736769?s=21

    Sadly, this all massively increases the chance that President Trump will be reelected.
  • SockySocky Posts: 404
    1992: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/roof-koreans

    Or one reason why Yanks want to keep their guns.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    On Vanilla every thread is now an undefined discussion subject?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Crikey just saw that Opinium poll. We are nearly at crossover. I thought it might take 3 months but this is pretty seismic.

    In a few short weeks the Conservatives have gone from 20% leads to almost neck-and-neck.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    A well written BBC long read on asymptomatic infection and silent spreaders:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52840763
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    humbugger said:

    According to the Mail the guy who claimed Cummings made a second trip to the North made it up as a joke, and the Teacher who reported Cummings to the Police has admitted to his own long distance lockdown busting trip to Berkshire and back.

    Hadn't the story of the second trip been discredited long ago? Not sure why this is remotely interesting anyway - it's what Cummings actually admitted to that has caused the justified fury.
    It is more than interesting.

    These two witnesses have been found out and you say 'nothing to see here'
    How has the ex Chemistry teacher been "found out"?

    Are you saying he didn't see Cummings in the location that Cummings has admitted being at to check his eyes?
    He was actively in breach of lockdown himself. Can you not see the hypocrisy

    Desperate. Nobody cares if this person is a hypocrite or not, unless he turns out to have been secretly responsible for government policy.

    But by all means start a campaign to get him to resign from something if you feel strongly about it.
    People, Conservatives many of them, are still incandescent about it. And fuming that Johnson hasn't had the courage to fire him.

    Johnson is so weak as a person that he couldn't survive without his Svengali as the Mail calls him. The consequence for Boris will be 4 years of watching himself become deeply unpopular and his party's lead lost. As how people see him matters hugely to Johnson (but not Cummings) this will be a personal hell for him.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615
    That dude with the bow and arrow had a bad night as well. If you're going to take a weapon to a riot, don't choose a 17th Century one.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    edited May 2020
    Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.

    Not surprising that eventually it all kicked off to be honest, telling millions of young Americans to stay home for weeks on end was unlikely to end well, and one flash point has allowed every anarchist group in the country to cause trouble.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    Sandpit said:

    Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.

    Just going on what Sky are showing, there doesn't look that many people there. I reckon there are as many people filming the riots as people rioting. Obviously it doesn't take all that many people to cause a lot destruction.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    IanB2 said:

    On Vanilla every thread is now an undefined discussion subject?

    Yepp, for last few threads.

    The main PB site is a total catastrophe, both in standard version and mobile. Totally unusable, and don’t get me on to login right off.

    So, the only sane option is to use site via vanillacommunity, and even there it is a nightmare. Now you can’t even see the headline or the first paragraph. No wonder everyone just goes straight off-topic. How many people ever even read the original post?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    IanB2 said:

    A well written BBC long read on asymptomatic infection and silent spreaders:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52840763

    "Different studies suggest a huge range of possibilities for how many cases are asymptomatic stretching from 5% to 80% of cases. That was the conclusion of an analysis by Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and colleagues who looked at 21 research projects."

    How can we still have a range from 5% to 80%? Until we get this element of Covid-19 understood, we really know nothing about its transmission in a post-lockdown world.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615

    IanB2 said:

    A well written BBC long read on asymptomatic infection and silent spreaders:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52840763

    "Different studies suggest a huge range of possibilities for how many cases are asymptomatic stretching from 5% to 80% of cases. That was the conclusion of an analysis by Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and colleagues who looked at 21 research projects."

    How can we still have a range from 5% to 80%? Until we get this element of Covid-19 understood, we really know nothing about its transmission in a post-lockdown world.
    I think the studies in populations with reasonable numbers of infected people are fairly consistent, there are just lots of little ones in places with hardly any infected people, and it's hard to get a good result there because if you're even slightly wrong about how many false positives your test gives it'll give you a completely different number.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    IanB2 said:

    On Vanilla every thread is now an undefined discussion subject?

    Yepp, for last few threads.

    The main PB site is a total catastrophe, both in standard version and mobile. Totally unusable, and don’t get me on to login right off.

    So, the only sane option is to use site via vanillacommunity, and even there it is a nightmare. Now you can’t even see the headline or the first paragraph. No wonder everyone just goes straight off-topic. How many people ever even read the original post?
    It all works fine in Chrome. But that doesn't mean I have to read thread headers I find uninteresting or long-winded.

    Mike Smithson's threads are always the best. They're succinct and virtually always pertain to betting.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Sandpit said:

    Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.

    Not surprising that eventually it all kicked off to be honest, telling millions of young Americans to stay home for weeks on end was unlikely to end well, and one flash point has allowed every anarchist group in the country to cause trouble.

    America has been a powder keg for some time and it's wrong to put the blame wholly on Trump.

    As John Green says, the American Dream is basically benefitting from someone else's misfortune.

    I love Americans but right now the country is rotten to the core.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,448
    edited May 2020

    IanB2 said:

    A well written BBC long read on asymptomatic infection and silent spreaders:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52840763

    "Different studies suggest a huge range of possibilities for how many cases are asymptomatic stretching from 5% to 80% of cases. That was the conclusion of an analysis by Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and colleagues who looked at 21 research projects."

    How can we still have a range from 5% to 80%? Until we get this element of Covid-19 understood, we really know nothing about its transmission in a post-lockdown world.
    I think the studies in populations with reasonable numbers of infected people are fairly consistent, there are just lots of little ones in places with hardly any infected people, and it's hard to get a good result there because if you're even slightly wrong about how many false positives your test gives it'll give you a completely different number.
    Yes. I haven't read the BBC article, but a large range of estimates from different studies sounds exactly like what you'd expect, particularly if the studies are small and therefore statistically underpowered.

    I think the standard of BBC science journalism is pretty appalling. They should link to the sources of information like this. The source for this claim seems to be a non-peer-reviewed online article published on 6 April:
    https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-what-proportion-are-asymptomatic/

    If the main source of their information is a non-peer-reviewed article that's nearly two months old that's ridiculous.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    Sandpit said:

    Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.

    Not surprising that eventually it all kicked off to be honest, telling millions of young Americans to stay home for weeks on end was unlikely to end well, and one flash point has allowed every anarchist group in the country to cause trouble.

    America has been a powder keg for some time and it's wrong to put the blame wholly on Trump.

    As John Green says, the American Dream is basically benefitting from someone else's misfortune.

    I love Americans but right now the country is rotten to the core.
    A bit early for hyperbole isn't it?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Fasinating article in the Times this morming .. rumours of Cummings being punched by a cabinet minister... all denied of course
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    edited May 2020

    Sandpit said:

    Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.

    Not surprising that eventually it all kicked off to be honest, telling millions of young Americans to stay home for weeks on end was unlikely to end well, and one flash point has allowed every anarchist group in the country to cause trouble.

    America has been a powder keg for some time and it's wrong to put the blame wholly on Trump.

    As John Green says, the American Dream is basically benefitting from someone else's misfortune.

    I love Americans but right now the country is rotten to the core.
    I do think of Trump as a symptom rather than the cause of the problems, but I'm really not sure how the longstanding issues get resolved.

    There's always been a fundamental distrust by most Americans of all the people in power, and the politicians clearly being in it only for themselves and their campaign contributions - a situation which compounds the most broken elements of society in the States.

    So now we see a reaction to that, with several different organised groups of people turning protests into riots in cities across the country, against a background of a lockdown and the spark of yet another death in police custody. This will in the short term only breed a vicious cycle of harder policing and more riots, until eventually order can be restored. As others have said, it plays into Trump's hands.

    But as always, identifying the problems is the easy bit. It's coming up with solutions that's much more difficult - especially when everyone's primary emotion is anger, but for many different and opposing reasons.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914

    Fasinating article in the Times this morming .. rumours of Cummings being punched by a cabinet minister... all denied of course

    I wonder who it was. Most of them are complete poltroons (Williamson, Sunak, Dowden, Jenrick, etc) who have never been in a swedge in their lives. Ben "Swain" Wallace looks the type who would be ready to throw hands when tanked up.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Dura_Ace said:

    Fasinating article in the Times this morming .. rumours of Cummings being punched by a cabinet minister... all denied of course

    I wonder who it was. Most of them are complete poltroons (Williamson, Sunak, Dowden, Jenrick, etc) who have never been in a swedge in their lives. Ben "Swain" Wallace looks the type who would be ready to throw hands when tanked up.
    Read the article.. it says who... you might be surprised or not....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    Noteworthy piece by veteran broadcaster Alastair Stewart on the need for broadcast media to remain impartial, in an age of partisan social media and the search for clicks and likes.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/emily-maitlis-and-the-foxification-of-britain-s-broadcast-media

    "It was once a given that folk, good enough to tune in a TV news programme, would receive it 'straight'. The confidence people can have in that is eroding. "
  • SockySocky Posts: 404
    Sandpit said:

    I do think of Trump as a symptom rather than the cause of the problems, but I'm really not sure how the long-standing issues get resolved.

    Though it was not well reported over here, Obama's exploitation of the Trayvon Martin shooting is an example of long-standing issues not being resolved.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    edited May 2020
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    The guy is a moron, your typical nasty nasty unionist Tory.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.

    Not surprising that eventually it all kicked off to be honest, telling millions of young Americans to stay home for weeks on end was unlikely to end well, and one flash point has allowed every anarchist group in the country to cause trouble.

    America has been a powder keg for some time and it's wrong to put the blame wholly on Trump.

    As John Green says, the American Dream is basically benefitting from someone else's misfortune.

    I love Americans but right now the country is rotten to the core.
    I do think of Trump as a symptom rather than the cause of the problems, but I'm really not sure how the longstanding issues get resolved.

    There's always been a fundamental distrust by most Americans of all the people in power, and the politicians clearly being in it only for themselves and their campaign contributions - a situation which compounds the most broken elements of society in the States.

    So now we see a reaction to that, with several different organised groups of people turning protests into riots in cities across the country, against a background of a lockdown and the spark of yet another death in police custody. This will in the short term only breed a vicious cycle of harder policing and more riots, until eventually order can be restored. As others have said, it plays into Trump's hands.

    But as always, identifying the problems is the easy bit. It's coming up with solutions that's much more difficult - especially when everyone's primary emotion is anger, but for many different and opposing reasons.
    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    A few people got some good pics of the ‘shooting star’ SpaceX rocket over the UK at dusk last night.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8372795/Excited-Britons-try-catch-glimpse-Elon-Musks-SpaceX-rocket.html

    Awesome achievement, that we now send men into space on privately-developed rockets for a tiny fraction of the cost of such missions in the past.

    Among all the crap news today, a major positive development in the progress of humanity. :+1:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    edited May 2020
    Dura_Ace said:

    Fasinating article in the Times this morming .. rumours of Cummings being punched by a cabinet minister... all denied of course

    I wonder who it was. Most of them are complete poltroons (Williamson, Sunak, Dowden, Jenrick, etc) who have never been in a swedge in their lives. Ben "Swain" Wallace looks the type who would be ready to throw hands when tanked up.
    Priti looks like she might have a haymaker in her. Ball height mind you.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    And on topic:

    I once again say it’s time for Pence to grow a pair and invoke the 25th amendment.
  • SockySocky Posts: 404
    edited May 2020
    Sandpit said:

    "It was once a given that folk, good enough to tune in a TV news programme, would receive it 'straight'. The confidence people can have in that is eroding. "

    I think the days when the TV news was trusted to be impartial have gone and are not coming back.

    Realistically the only option now is to have a plurality of different options, and let people work out the truth for themselves. This is yet another reason why reform of BBC/C4 is needed.

  • Black Wednesday indeed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Concerns about these A-Level grades that only four in five will be accurate:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/doubts-over-new-a-level-grading-jwwwwbhnp

    For AQA that would still be an improvement.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    Dura_Ace said:

    Fasinating article in the Times this morming .. rumours of Cummings being punched by a cabinet minister... all denied of course

    I wonder who it was. Most of them are complete poltroons (Williamson, Sunak, Dowden, Jenrick, etc) who have never been in a swedge in their lives. Ben "Swain" Wallace looks the type who would be ready to throw hands when tanked up.
    Priti looks like she might have a haymaker in her. Ball height mind you.
    Raab
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    Sandpit said:

    A few people got some good pics of the ‘shooting star’ SpaceX rocket over the UK at dusk last night.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8372795/Excited-Britons-try-catch-glimpse-Elon-Musks-SpaceX-rocket.html

    Awesome achievement, that we now send men into space on privately-developed rockets for a tiny fraction of the cost of such missions in the past.

    Among all the crap news today, a major positive development in the progress of humanity. :+1:

    You want to inflict THIS on the stars?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    rcs1000 said:

    eadric said:

    Nah. This is the story. A white guy lynched on tv, live, in a video which has gained a million viewers in 30 minutes, and which will now explode. It’s as bad as the original Floyd video.

    RIP both of them

    https://twitter.com/elijahschaffer/status/1266925493384736769?s=21

    Sadly, this all massively increases the chance that President Trump will be reelected.
    The harder he goes, the less unpopular he becomes. His Twitter account remains a handy tool to ramp up the rhetoric and sound out the potential reaction.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    The guy is a moron, your typical nasty nasty unionist Tory.
    Malc.. you are nothing if not persistent and expected in everything you say
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    edited May 2020
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.

    Not surprising that eventually it all kicked off to be honest, telling millions of young Americans to stay home for weeks on end was unlikely to end well, and one flash point has allowed every anarchist group in the country to cause trouble.

    America has been a powder keg for some time and it's wrong to put the blame wholly on Trump.

    As John Green says, the American Dream is basically benefitting from someone else's misfortune.

    I love Americans but right now the country is rotten to the core.
    I do think of Trump as a symptom rather than the cause of the problems, but I'm really not sure how the longstanding issues get resolved.

    There's always been a fundamental distrust by most Americans of all the people in power, and the politicians clearly being in it only for themselves and their campaign contributions - a situation which compounds the most broken elements of society in the States.

    So now we see a reaction to that, with several different organised groups of people turning protests into riots in cities across the country, against a background of a lockdown and the spark of yet another death in police custody. This will in the short term only breed a vicious cycle of harder policing and more riots, until eventually order can be restored. As others have said, it plays into Trump's hands.

    But as always, identifying the problems is the easy bit. It's coming up with solutions that's much more difficult - especially when everyone's primary emotion is anger, but for many different and opposing reasons.
    The racial divide in America is striking, with cities demarcated into areas where people of the different ethnicity simply don't go, somewhat reminiscent of Northern Ireland.

    I remember walking to the dog park in Buffalo last autumn, a walk on a sunny afternoon that took me through what was clearly a black neighbourhood. People were very friendly as we strolled toward the park in the heat, and lots of people stopped me to ask about the dog.

    While we were in the dog park, two separate white dog owners took me aside to say that they couldn't help notice the direction from which I'd arrived on foot, and to warn me that walking through that neighbourhood wasn't safe. One told me that I had risked being shot or stabbed.

    Given my experience on the way out I wasn't hugely worried, and as there wasn't any other way to return to the hotel on foot without a long detour, I went back the way I came. I can only assume my body language must have been different on the return trip, and no-one spoke to me at all. Looking around it was hard to avoid seeing the area differently.

    If I'd been walking through downtown Miami or Baltimore this might seem an unexceptional anecdote mostly about my ignorance. But I looked up the area I'd walked through when I got back, and it (Lakeview) turns out, of those US neighbourhoods identified as black communities, to have the highest average income in the whole of the States. A level of income that in the UK we would describe as typical of a middle class part of the Home Counties. Yet I had been warned off walking there, twice, unprompted.



  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    Sandpit said:

    A few people got some good pics of the ‘shooting star’ SpaceX rocket over the UK at dusk last night.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8372795/Excited-Britons-try-catch-glimpse-Elon-Musks-SpaceX-rocket.html

    Awesome achievement, that we now send men into space on privately-developed rockets for a tiny fraction of the cost of such missions in the past.

    Among all the crap news today, a major positive development in the progress of humanity. :+1:

    You want to inflict THIS on the stars?
    Regardless of what Gene Roddenberry thought, it is most unlikely we will ever reach them.

    That would definitely be a breach of quarantine...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.
    Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
    I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
  • SockySocky Posts: 404
    edited May 2020

    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.

    Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.

    * I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    edited May 2020
    UK joins COVID-19 High Performance Computing Consortium

    UKRI becomes the first member with a supercomputer in Europe
    Joins 40 other partners from government, academia and industry
    Projects to address the challenges of pandemic and recovery
    Researchers to apply for access to HPC facilities in the USA and UK
    Consortium currently has 56 active projects and more than 430 Petaflops of compute

    Supercomputers in the UK and USA are being used to run a myriad of calculations in epidemiology, bioinformatics and molecular modeling, in a effort to drastically cut the time of discovery of new molecules that could lead to treatments and a vaccine.


    https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-joins-covid-19-high-performance-computing-consortium/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    edited May 2020
    Socky said:

    Sandpit said:

    "It was once a given that folk, good enough to tune in a TV news programme, would receive it 'straight'. The confidence people can have in that is eroding. "

    I think the days when the TV news was trusted to be impartial have gone and are not coming back.

    Realistically the only option now is to have a plurality of different options, and let people work out the truth for themselves. This is yet another reason why reform of BBC/C4 is needed.

    It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).

    To be fair, the UK broadcast media is actually better than most - the issues that arise are with certain subjects where everyone who works in the media industry has the same viewpoint, and fails to acknowledge that the public are actually split on it. This is what we saw last week, where the media started from the point of view that Dominic Cummings was evil incarnate, despite the fact that the vast majority of people watching their broadcasts had never even heard of him.

    Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited May 2020

    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.
    Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
    I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
    They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.

    I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.

    Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
    Anti Scottish Loonies are up and about early today
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740

    Dura_Ace said:

    Fasinating article in the Times this morming .. rumours of Cummings being punched by a cabinet minister... all denied of course

    I wonder who it was. Most of them are complete poltroons (Williamson, Sunak, Dowden, Jenrick, etc) who have never been in a swedge in their lives. Ben "Swain" Wallace looks the type who would be ready to throw hands when tanked up.
    Priti looks like she might have a haymaker in her. Ball height mind you.
    Raab
    Isn't Raab the karate bloke? Wouldn't that make a punch less likely?
  • SockySocky Posts: 404

    Not sure how serious her offence actually is.

    Her "offence" was undermining the Labour/BBC narrative.

    As with Cummings, the facts do not seem terribly serious or important.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740
    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Personally I think meeting one other person is more serious than driving to Durham. Meeting people spreads the virus. Driving, any distance, of itself does not spread the virus. Having said that, I think Cummings was wrong to do what he did as I don't believe he couldn't have found a more conventional method to cope with his "childcare issues" and certainly didn't have to go to Barney to go for a walk, however nice a place it is. Whether either should resign or be sacked is a moot point. If we measure criminal offences by the penalty, a £60 FP is trivial.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Sandpit said:

    Socky said:

    Sandpit said:

    "It was once a given that folk, good enough to tune in a TV news programme, would receive it 'straight'. The confidence people can have in that is eroding. "

    I think the days when the TV news was trusted to be impartial have gone and are not coming back.

    Realistically the only option now is to have a plurality of different options, and let people work out the truth for themselves. This is yet another reason why reform of BBC/C4 is needed.

    It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).

    To be fair, the UK broadcast media is actually better than most - the issues that arise are with certain subjects where everyone who works in the media industry has the same viewpoint, and fails to acknowledge that the public are actually split on it. This is what we saw last week, where the media started from the point of view that Dominic Cummings was evil incarnate, despite the fact that the vast majority of people watching their broadcasts had never even heard of him.

    Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.
    UK broadcast media are an insular inward looking bunch of crap. Channel 4 are the only mob that make any attempt, and worst of them is the state propaganda unit.
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 46
    Headline of the day - Burn in the USA.
    The Sun.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    Socky said:

    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.

    Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.

    * I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
    Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.

    Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    *not surprised
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.
    Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
    I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
    There's a couple of comedians in the US who were dating casually for a few weeks, and ended up moving in together as the lockdown started. Their podcast stories of working through a new relationship when stuck with each other 24/7 for two months are rather amusing.

    Comedians in general are having a very good lockdown. Many are not particularly wealthy and have lost all their income from performing, but have kept up working from home to amuse the rest of us and have also been active in charity fundraising. When this is all over, go spend some time at your local comedy club! :D
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited May 2020

    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Personally I think meeting one other person is more serious than driving to Durham. Meeting people spreads the virus. Driving, any distance, of itself does not spread the virus.
    While there’s some logic to that position, and I have like you always thought the rules on driving were daft, the guidance was clear - if you believe you have CV19, stay in your primary residence unless you have to leave. His excuses for leaving do not stand up to scrutiny.

    You are also forgetting that he returned to work against the rules when he believed his wife had Covid19, Although here again, she may not have done, given there was another bug going around at the time.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    The guy is a moron, your typical nasty nasty unionist Tory.
    Malc.. you are nothing if not persistent and expected in everything you say
    honesty , truth and consistency are important for sure
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Dura_Ace said:

    Fasinating article in the Times this morming .. rumours of Cummings being punched by a cabinet minister... all denied of course

    I wonder who it was. Most of them are complete poltroons (Williamson, Sunak, Dowden, Jenrick, etc) who have never been in a swedge in their lives. Ben "Swain" Wallace looks the type who would be ready to throw hands when tanked up.
    Priti looks like she might have a haymaker in her. Ball height mind you.
    Raab
    Oh dear , he looks like he could not fight his way out of a wet paper bag
  • SockySocky Posts: 404
    Sandpit said:

    It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).

    The UK at the moment seems to have a partisan news echo-chamber (singular), I don't see how that is any better.
    Sandpit said:

    Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.

    The lack of alternative views means that the TV news programmes have no real competition. They can all lead with the partisan irrelevant story of the day, and the viewers just have to take it.
  • SockySocky Posts: 404

    Not surprised that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    Actually I am not a fan of current policing standards or attitudes.

    However thinking a police officer would murder someone in public, while being videoed, and with three colleagues looking on, stretches credibility.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,817

    Socky said:

    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.

    Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.

    * I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
    Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.

    Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    *not surprised
    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Personally I think meeting one other person is more serious than driving to Durham. Meeting people spreads the virus. Driving, any distance, of itself does not spread the virus.
    While there’s some logic to that position, and I have like you always thought the rules on driving were daft, the guidance was clear - if you believe you have CV19, stay in your primary residence unless you have to leave. His excuses for leaving do not stand up to scrutiny.

    You are also forgetting that he returned to work against the rules when he believed his wife had Covid19, Although here again, she may not have done, given there was another bug going around at the time.

    And the reason for discouraging travel is that this is how epidemics spread rapidly around the country and get seeded in new locations.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372

    Crikey just saw that Opinium poll. We are nearly at crossover. I thought it might take 3 months but this is pretty seismic.

    In a few short weeks the Conservatives have gone from 20% leads to almost neck-and-neck.

    Completely unsurprising. As long as Boris, untested as PM, and Corbyn were in charge there was only one party a plurality of voters could vote for.

    The lapse of time, the rise of SKS - currently electable in personal terms even if he has a load of extremists awaiting their moment, the general malaise about the lock down which is unavoidable, and the political catastrophe of making all the ministers look like little unimportant people in contrast with DC, the failure so far to develop any sort of tactics in reply to SKS...

    The Tories have had no luck, but have also shown a remarkable lack of skill. If you are looking for reliable competence, only a few months ago there were no political candidates. There now is one on the horizon.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    ydoethur said:

    Concerns about these A-Level grades that only four in five will be accurate:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/doubts-over-new-a-level-grading-jwwwwbhnp

    For AQA that would still be an improvement.

    In Scotland teachers are being asked to band students into sub bands so rather than a band 1 there is now going to be bands 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. The object of this is, I think, that if the SQA think the marking is too harsh a 2.1 might be moved up to a band 1 or of too generous a 2.3 might be moved down to a band 3.
    The problem of kids who only pull their finger out once they get the wake up call of the prelims or mocks remains and I don’t really see a solution unless they have enough solid course work post prelim to vouch the improvement.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    edited May 2020
    Socky said:

    Not surprised that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    Actually I am not a fan of current policing standards or attitudes.

    However thinking a police officer would murder someone in public, while being videoed, and with three colleagues looking on, stretches credibility.
    Third degree murder is what the charge is, similar to manslaughter here.

    Pre-existing conditions are beside the point. Just like shooting someone on cancer treatment.

    But most importantly, this is not a single incident. There are repeated examples of police killing unarmed african-americans.

    It is not easy policing in America, where everyone has potential to be armed, and sentences so draconian. Any suspect for arrest therefore has potential and motivation to shoot back.

    The situation is not helped either by the fragmentary nature of American policing, poor training, and political election of sheriffs and judges.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    The guy is a moron, your typical nasty nasty unionist Tory.
    Malc.. you are nothing if not persistent and expected in everything you say
    honesty , truth and consistency are important for sure
    You mean dissembling outright lies and insults.....
  • SockySocky Posts: 404
    eek said:

    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.

    Yes, they had several good reasons for acting quickly.

    However it possible the guy had a heart attack due to the stress of being arrested. That would be a terrible breach of duty of care, and probably worthy of sackings and prosecution.

    It would not be murder though.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,149
    eek said:

    Socky said:

    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.

    Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.

    * I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
    Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.

    Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    *not surprised
    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.
    Nonsense, in most states anyone can be fired at any time for any reason (as long as it is not on a very short list of exceptions such as race or sex - being gay is notably absent)
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Excellent news especially about Bercow.. horrid little man both adjectively and literally. He and his wife deserve each other
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Socky said:

    eek said:

    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.

    Yes, they had several good reasons for acting quickly.

    However it possible the guy had a heart attack due to the stress of being arrested. That would be a terrible breach of duty of care, and probably worthy of sackings and prosecution.

    It would not be murder though.
    Manslaughter. (3rd degree murder).


    I believe it is possible to get the same charge here, if for example a mugger causes a fatal hard attack.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914
    Socky said:

    Not surprised that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    Actually I am not a fan of current policing standards or attitudes.

    However thinking a police officer would murder someone in public, while being videoed, and with three colleagues looking on, stretches credibility.
    Ian Tomlinson. ACAB.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,149
    edited May 2020
    Socky said:

    Sandpit said:

    It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).

    The UK at the moment seems to have a partisan news echo-chamber (singular), I don't see how that is any better.
    Sandpit said:

    Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.

    The lack of alternative views means that the TV news programmes have no real competition. They can all lead with the partisan irrelevant story of the day, and the viewers just have to take it.
    Most of those who complain about TV news in this country are in the 10% most extreme left or right. Their complaints are usually that the news contradicts their partisan worldview which they put down to “bias” rather than consider that what they believe may be wrong.

    A quick glance at Twitter shows both extreme left and right attacking the BBC, for example. They can’t both be right.

    I find the attitude of “people are angry that the news doesn’t confirm their bullsh*t, so let’s start a news channel to make up news to confirm it” profoundly disturbing.
  • SockySocky Posts: 404
    Foxy said:

    Third degree murder is what the charge is, similar to manslaughter here.

    Yes, but we should stick to manslaughter to avoid implying something else happened.
    Foxy said:

    Pre-existing conditions are beside the point. Just like shooting someone on cancer treatment.

    Surely if he died of his pre-existing condition that is relevant?
    Foxy said:

    But most importantly, this is not a single incident. There are repeated examples of police killing unarmed african-americans.

    True, but that is like assuming guilt because people who look like you commit lots of crimes. It is not fair.
    Foxy said:

    The situation is not helped either by the fragmentary nature of American policing, poor training, and political election of sheriffs and judges.

    Politics and poor training appear to be problems with policing in the UK.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,768
    Socky said:

    eek said:

    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.

    Yes, they had several good reasons for acting quickly.

    However it possible the guy had a heart attack due to the stress of being arrested. That would be a terrible breach of duty of care, and probably worthy of sackings and prosecution.

    It would not be murder though.
    It probably would. Google "eggshell skull."
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
    We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.

    Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69
    Brit Nat MSPs = 61

    Your British Nationalism fails.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
    We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.

    Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69
    Brit Nat MSPs = 61

    Your British Nationalism fails.
    Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
    We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.

    Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69
    Brit Nat MSPs = 61

    Your British Nationalism fails.
    Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
    Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?

    What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.

    You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.
    Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
    I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
    There's a couple of comedians in the US who were dating casually for a few weeks, and ended up moving in together as the lockdown started. Their podcast stories of working through a new relationship when stuck with each other 24/7 for two months are rather amusing.

    Comedians in general are having a very good lockdown. Many are not particularly wealthy and have lost all their income from performing, but have kept up working from home to amuse the rest of us and have also been active in charity fundraising. When this is all over, go spend some time at your local comedy club! :D
    Not seen one yet, assume you are talking about in the desert where you are
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    eek said:

    Socky said:

    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.

    Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.

    * I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
    Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.

    Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    *not surprised
    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.
    Republican Politicians were calling it outrageous and a murder straight off the bat. This is basically unprecedented.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.
    Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
    I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
    They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.

    I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.

    Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
    No, the moral dimension to the Duffield case make it a straight red like Ferguson.All authorities have given Cummings a clean bill of health. Likewise Jenrick.

    Starmer has seen to be monumentally weak for not withdrawing the whip from Duffield and Ali.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Scott_xP said:
    Perfect excuse for the lazy no good lying Bozo, only partly raised from the dead it seems. Bet Cummings thought that one up for him.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319

    eek said:

    Socky said:

    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.

    Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.

    * I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
    Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.

    Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    *not surprised
    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.
    Nonsense, in most states anyone can be fired at any time for any reason (as long as it is not on a very short list of exceptions such as race or sex - being gay is notably absent)
    Cops are never fired after Murdering someone in America. They are put on gardening leave and then let back in after an 'investigation'.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Socky said:

    Foxy said:

    Third degree murder is what the charge is, similar to manslaughter here.

    Yes, but we should stick to manslaughter to avoid implying something else happened.
    Foxy said:

    Pre-existing conditions are beside the point. Just like shooting someone on cancer treatment.

    Surely if he died of his pre-existing condition that is relevant?
    Foxy said:

    But most importantly, this is not a single incident. There are repeated examples of police killing unarmed african-americans.

    True, but that is like assuming guilt because people who look like you commit lots of crimes. It is not fair.
    Foxy said:

    The situation is not helped either by the fragmentary nature of American policing, poor training, and political election of sheriffs and judges.

    Politics and poor training appear to be problems with policing in the UK.
    The charge is 3rd degree murder. From Wikipedia:

    "Minnesota law originally defined third-degree murder solely as depraved-heart murder ("without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life")."
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Excellent news especially about Bercow.. horrid little man both adjectively and literally. He and his wife deserve each other
    Nasty vindictive Tories.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    malcolmg said:

    Excellent news especially about Bercow.. horrid little man both adjectively and literally. He and his wife deserve each other
    Nasty vindictive Tories.
    Bercow was supposed to.be a Tory.. but he wasn't really .. he showed his vindictiveness in the Commons time and time again supporting the Opposition against the Govt.
    .
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,035
    Foxy said:

    The situation is not helped either by the fragmentary nature of American policing, poor training, and political election of sheriffs and judges.

    The police chief in Minneapolis was not elected.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,768

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off topic (sorry Stuart!)

    Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.

    Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.

    But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.

    Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.

    And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.

    Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.
    Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
    I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
    They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.

    I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.

    Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
    No, the moral dimension to the Duffield case make it a straight red like Ferguson.All authorities have given Cummings a clean bill of health. Likewise Jenrick.

    Starmer has seen to be monumentally weak for not withdrawing the whip from Duffield and Ali.

    Who on earth are you claiming as giving Cummings a "clean bill of health?"
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
    We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.

    Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69
    Brit Nat MSPs = 61

    Your British Nationalism fails.
    Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
    Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?

    What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.

    You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
    Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372
    IshmaelZ said:

    Socky said:

    eek said:

    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.

    Yes, they had several good reasons for acting quickly.

    However it possible the guy had a heart attack due to the stress of being arrested. That would be a terrible breach of duty of care, and probably worthy of sackings and prosecution.

    It would not be murder though.
    It probably would. Google "eggshell skull."
    English law: Eggshell skull won't do for murder. Intent is essential: you have either intend to kill or intend to do GBH (ie really serious harm). Manslaughter covers lots of other circumstances.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    malcolmg said:

    Excellent news especially about Bercow.. horrid little man both adjectively and literally. He and his wife deserve each other
    Nasty vindictive Tories.
    Bercow was supposed to.be a Tory.. but he wasn't really .. he showed his vindictiveness in the Commons time and time again supporting the Opposition against the Govt.
    .
    Not enough brown nosing and tugging his forelock to Boris you mean, he was honest rather than being partisan. Having some principles and honesty shows he was not your average Tory and he has been shafted by Boris and his bunch of spineless cretins.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,611
    edited May 2020
    Foxy said:

    Socky said:

    Foxy said:

    Third degree murder is what the charge is, similar to manslaughter here.

    Yes, but we should stick to manslaughter to avoid implying something else happened.
    Foxy said:

    Pre-existing conditions are beside the point. Just like shooting someone on cancer treatment.

    Surely if he died of his pre-existing condition that is relevant?
    Foxy said:

    But most importantly, this is not a single incident. There are repeated examples of police killing unarmed african-americans.

    True, but that is like assuming guilt because people who look like you commit lots of crimes. It is not fair.
    Foxy said:

    The situation is not helped either by the fragmentary nature of American policing, poor training, and political election of sheriffs and judges.

    Politics and poor training appear to be problems with policing in the UK.
    The charge is 3rd degree murder. From Wikipedia:

    "Minnesota law originally defined third-degree murder solely as depraved-heart murder ("without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life")."
    That looks like a good match to me.

    One of the problems in commenting on legal issues in the US is that each state has its own laws and definitions change from state to state, never mind between us and them. Most English people have a hard enough time remembering that Scotland has its own laws.

    Edit: I should add that my expertise on this field is solely down to watching far too many episodes of Law and Order...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.

    Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%

    Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
    Huh?

    That Opinium gives seat distribution of:

    SNP 52 seats (+4)
    SCon 6 seats (nc)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SLD 0 seats (-4)

    ... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
    Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.

    If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
    So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
    No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.

    Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
    So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
    We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
    But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
    Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
    It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.

    HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots

    ... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
    I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.


    However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.

    I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.

    However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
    So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.

    “A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.

    With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
    You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
    We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.

    Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69
    Brit Nat MSPs = 61

    Your British Nationalism fails.
    Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
    Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?

    What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.

    You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
    Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
    “Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights

    “There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?

    “The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.

    Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,039
    Socky said:

    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.

    Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.

    * I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
    It is not anything like ‘standard police procedure’, even in police departments which allow the (extremely dangerous) use of neck restraints:
    https://www.actionnewsnow.com/content/news/570850012.html
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,611
    edited May 2020
    algarkirk said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Socky said:

    eek said:

    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.

    Yes, they had several good reasons for acting quickly.

    However it possible the guy had a heart attack due to the stress of being arrested. That would be a terrible breach of duty of care, and probably worthy of sackings and prosecution.

    It would not be murder though.
    It probably would. Google "eggshell skull."
    English law: Eggshell skull won't do for murder. Intent is essential: you have either intend to kill or intend to do GBH (ie really serious harm). Manslaughter covers lots of other circumstances.
    Foxy shows that murder in the third degree in Minnesota is equivalent to what in England is manslaughter.

    Edit: in the third degree added.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,768
    algarkirk said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Socky said:

    eek said:

    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.

    Yes, they had several good reasons for acting quickly.

    However it possible the guy had a heart attack due to the stress of being arrested. That would be a terrible breach of duty of care, and probably worthy of sackings and prosecution.

    It would not be murder though.
    It probably would. Google "eggshell skull."
    English law: Eggshell skull won't do for murder. Intent is essential: you have either intend to kill or intend to do GBH (ie really serious harm). Manslaughter covers lots of other circumstances.
    No, but it works fine for masnslaughter, which = 3rd degree murder.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 9,460
    Alistair said:

    eek said:

    Socky said:

    Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.

    Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.

    * I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
    Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.

    Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.

    *not surprised
    The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.
    Nonsense, in most states anyone can be fired at any time for any reason (as long as it is not on a very short list of exceptions such as race or sex - being gay is notably absent)
    Cops are never fired after Murdering someone in America. They are put on gardening leave and then let back in after an 'investigation'.
    This may be due to the fact that it is an effing dangerous job. When police in this country are called to the scene of a crime it rarely crosses the mind that the suspect will be armed. In the US, they would normally assume the suspect is.
This discussion has been closed.