politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Calling. The clash over the Tory candidate in London
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Calling. The clash over the Tory candidate in London
? Exclusive: Shaun Bailey, the Tory candidate for London mayor, has lost the support of senior party officials and donors.Some are keen to see him replaced by a prominent name – such as former chancellor Sajid Javid.Latest with @GeorgeWParker https://t.co/kAGkRW4yvg
0
Comments
-
Two calls summed up one of Boris Johnson’s most difficult weeks as prime minister. Early last week a senior member of Downing Street staff phoned a friend and said: “The worry is that [Chris] Whitty and [Sir Patrick] Vallance could resign.” The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser — often seen flanking the prime minister at the coronavirus press conferences — had not made a threat to walk, but they were, to use a whips’ phrase, “on resignation watch”. “Their posture is much more aggressive,” a senior Tory confided.
Johnson’s team would have been more concerned still if they had known the details of a recent conversation between a senior member of the Sage advisory group of scientists and a representative of one of Britain’s leading business groups. “We have had enough of being treated as human shields by the prime minister,” the scientist complained.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnson-is-tied-up-in-knots-over-the-coronavirus-7t6h9jl3z1 -
With the Mayoral election having been postponed till May next year, I am happy to wait to see how things develop. The demographic argument might be overplayed: Boris beat Labour and (as is sometimes forgotten) so did Ken Livingstone.0
-
A Cambridge study, for those who care.
A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with ‘lock-down’ in managing the COVID-19 pandemic
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376
... Here, we report the results of two mathematical models and show that facemask use by the public could make a major contribution to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our intention is to provide a simple modelling framework to examine the dynamics of COVID-19 epidemics when facemasks are worn by the public, with or without imposed ‘lock-down’ periods. Our results are illustrated for a number of plausible values for parameter ranges describing epidemiological processes and mechanistic properties of facemasks, in the absence of current measurements for these values. We show that, when facemasks are used by the public all the time (not just from when symptoms first appear), the effective reproduction number, Re, can be decreased below 1, leading to the mitigation of epidemic spread. Under certain conditions, when lock-down periods are implemented in combination with 100% facemask use, there is vastly less disease spread, secondary and tertiary waves are flattened and the epidemic is brought under control. The effect occurs even when it is assumed that facemasks are only 50% effective at capturing exhaled virus inoculum with an equal or lower efficiency on inhalation. Facemask use by the public has been suggested to be ineffective because wearers may touch their faces more often, thus increasing the probability of contracting COVID-19. For completeness, our models show that facemask adoption provides population-level benefits, even in circumstances where wearers are placed at increased risk. At the time of writing, facemask use by the public has not been recommended in many countries, but a recommendation for wearing face-coverings has just been announced for Scotland. Even if facemask use began after the start of the first lock-down period, our results show that benefits could still accrue by reducing the risk of the occurrence of further COVID-19 waves. We examine the effects of different rates of facemask adoption without lock-down periods and show that, even at lower levels of adoption, benefits accrue to the facemask wearers. These analyses may explain why some countries, where adoption of facemask use by the public is around 100%, have experienced significantly lower rates of COVID-19 spread and associated deaths. We conclude that facemask use by the public, when used in combination with physical distancing or periods of lock-down, may provide an acceptable way of managing the COVID-19 pandemic and re-opening economic activity. These results are relevant to the developed as well as the developing world, where large numbers of people are resource poor, but fabrication of home-made, effective facemasks is possible...3 -
Good morning; and it's a bright one again here.Scott_xP said:Two calls summed up one of Boris Johnson’s most difficult weeks as prime minister. Early last week a senior member of Downing Street staff phoned a friend and said: “The worry is that [Chris] Whitty and [Sir Patrick] Vallance could resign.” The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser — often seen flanking the prime minister at the coronavirus press conferences — had not made a threat to walk, but they were, to use a whips’ phrase, “on resignation watch”. “Their posture is much more aggressive,” a senior Tory confided.
Johnson’s team would have been more concerned still if they had known the details of a recent conversation between a senior member of the Sage advisory group of scientists and a representative of one of Britain’s leading business groups. “We have had enough of being treated as human shields by the prime minister,” the scientist complained.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnson-is-tied-up-in-knots-over-the-coronavirus-7t6h9jl3z
If, as is reported, the Chief Nursing Officer isn't being given the (doubtful) honour of flanking a Minister at the daily Covid Press Conference because she wasn't sufficiently supportive (or something) of Cummings, and Prof. van Tam hasn't been back since taking a similar stance, is one surprised?
2 -
Of the two big beasts quoted for the Mayoralty, I'd rather back Osborne than the Saj (both 50/1 against and perhaps longer if boosted) because, as noted last week, the speculation about dropping Shaun Bailey seemed to coincide with the Standard succession becoming known. Of course, sometimes coincidences are just coincidences.
Ladbrokes offers 1/5 Sadiq and 6/1 against Shaun Bailey so, as with the Presidential betting, there is a priced-in assumption one or both men might not stand next May, otherwise you could back both for a profit.3 -
On topic, there's a lot of time between now and the Mayoral election, and an awful lot of events between still to happen - as was seen yesterday.
How many more days of riots over the summer, before the incumbent mayor starts to feel the heat politically?1 -
Apart from the appalling scenes this week the biggest news in my opinion is the one emerging from Beijing. This is a really bad sign on so many levels. Needless to say, it's getting scant coverage here as in the UK we lag about 4 months behind, by which time another 50,000 might die.
1 -
London politics is not my area of expertise, but looking at it from afar, the Tory candidate is in for a right royal shafting. A job for folk The Yahs don’t really like.0
-
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
(edit) And, of course, least economically disruptive.
Or outright hostility...
https://twitter.com/bungdan/status/12718614604071608320 -
List of US states most at risk of a rebound:
https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/12718502961012858880 -
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?0
-
Agreed. If the facts are as reported, then the authorities are probably on top of the situation, but the very fact of the virus re-appearance must be extremely concerning. Underlines the fact that this isn't going to be over quickly. Mass vaccination, assuming a vaccine can be produced, looks as though it's coming.Mysticrose said:Apart from the appalling scenes this week the biggest news in my opinion is the one emerging from Beijing. This is a really bad sign on so many levels. Needless to say, it's getting scant coverage here as in the UK we lag about 4 months behind, by which time another 50,000 might die.
0 -
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.0 -
Either this was a spectacularly bad call, or we need to update the criteria for ‘high consequence’, or both....
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#definition-of-hcid
Status of COVID-19
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.
The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.
The need to have a national, coordinated response remains, but this is being met by the government’s COVID-19 response.
Cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by HCID treatment0 -
On masks, my Thai grandchildren were back at school tomorrow. Must though take a water bottle, a nut-free snack and two masks. One on, and a spare.
And Thailand, in spite of it's large Chinese-related population and proximity to China, has relatively few cases.0 -
Looked out the pdf of the "Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain 1942".
Interesting that they seem to use "Britisher" not "Brit".
https://atom.bamptonarchive.org/uploads/r/null/7/e/0/7e0d35405512ae7d0ad1c98fc2094e47396eedf1896c23bcfd8a6a5e427d85e5/Instructions_for_American_Servicemen_in_Britain_1942.pdf1 -
Interesting to work out what NY are doing that's different, or is it simply that there's no-one left to get it there? Are many of the states in trouble now those where there have been various mass-scale gatherings in recent weeks?Nigelb said:List of US states most at risk of a rebound:
https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1271850296101285888
Many of the larger states (Texas, Florida) are already re-opening themselves quite dramatically, one Texan comedy club re-opened on Friday for example - not much evidence of social distancing or mask wearing here, in a small and crowded venue that's probably one of the most likely places to spread a virus around. IMO comedy clubs and nightclubs should be the very last places to re-open.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXihNDsoqtE
0 -
That's brilliant!MattW said:Looked out the pdf of the "Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain 1942".
Interesting that they seem to use "Britisher" not "Brit".
https://atom.bamptonarchive.org/uploads/r/null/7/e/0/7e0d35405512ae7d0ad1c98fc2094e47396eedf1896c23bcfd8a6a5e427d85e5/Instructions_for_American_Servicemen_in_Britain_1942.pdf0 -
Presumably the government will spend a year trying to damage Khan by withholding cash or imposing unpopular conditions on it like they did with the TfL money (ironic given it's mostly Londoners' money anyway). It'll be a grim year for Londoners, but I doubt the Tories will benefit for all the reasons listed in the excellent header above.1
-
Can’t really answer the question about NY, though I suspect it has something to do with that having been so badly hit, they are continuing to abide by precautions to prevent a resurgence.Sandpit said:
Interesting to work out what NY are doing that's different, or is it simply that there's no-one left to get it there? Are many of the states in trouble now those where there have been various mass-scale gatherings in recent weeks?Nigelb said:List of US states most at risk of a rebound:
https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1271850296101285888
Many of the larger states (Texas, Florida) are already re-opening themselves quite dramatically, one Texan comedy club re-opened on Friday for example - not much evidence of social distancing or mask wearing here, in a small and crowded venue that's probably one of the most likely places to spread a virus around. IMO comedy clubs and nightclubs should be the very last places to re-open.
The re-openings in the Southern states seem to be in the face of as yet inadequate testing and tracking, and a relatively high rate of ongoing new infections.
It has proved the behavioural scientists right - for at least some populations - that lockdowns can’t be tolerated for any length of time.0 -
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1271738384604692480?s=21Mysticrose said:Apart from the appalling scenes this week the biggest news in my opinion is the one emerging from Beijing. This is a really bad sign on so many levels. Needless to say, it's getting scant coverage here as in the UK we lag about 4 months behind, by which time another 50,000 might die.
0 -
I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age. That would have affected everyone - worldwide.
If there's one thing likely to change my sympathies and bring me out onto the streets, it's targeting him.
Which is precisely why some are, of course.1 -
I don’t understand why they think Javid would be interested. First of all, he would lose. That must be an off-putting thought to somebody so ambitious. Secondly, he has very few links with London. I think I’m right in saying he’s spent as much time in New York as he has in London. Otherwise, his entire career has been linked to the West Midlands and West Country. Third, he’s surely a certainty to be straight back into the Cabinet as soon as Cummings is out, and must therefore still be seen as a contender for the premiership when Johnson goes - as long as he stays in the Commons. He will have the example of Burnham to ponder if he wants to go for a mayoral job.DecrepiterJohnL said:Of the two big beasts quoted for the Mayoralty, I'd rather back Osborne than the Saj (both 50/1 against and perhaps longer if boosted) because, as noted last week, the speculation about dropping Shaun Bailey seemed to coincide with the Standard succession becoming known. Of course, sometimes coincidences are just coincidences.
Ladbrokes offers 1/5 Sadiq and 6/1 against Shaun Bailey so, as with the Presidential betting, there is a priced-in assumption one or both men might not stand next May, otherwise you could back both for a profit.
Osborne I would be tempted by if Shaun Bailey were hit by a bus. But not Javid. That’s somebody in the Tory party being stupid.7 -
Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
0 -
-
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.0 -
From his Wikipedia profile his career has been almost entirely in politics, the only ‘real’ work he appears to have done (apart from some self-admitted burglary in his youth) is as a bouncer at the Trocedero. A charity he founded ran into accusations of misspent funds and was shut down due to financial problems.Andy_JS said:Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
He’s been on the London Assembly for five years, but no-one has found anything notable he has done there to add to the article. Under political views there are just a few fragmentary thoughts about links between childhood sexual activity and crime.
That’s it. DYOR.0 -
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.0 -
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)0 -
What the f..., that's true. Also for international Google versions (I tried .com and .ae)Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
0 -
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?0 -
Out of the mouth of bairns.BluestBlue said:
Neither of them had 4 years (or 4.5 years if we go for lucky December again) to turn things around either. Neither of them had already won a landslide majority in their own right.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the last few times a PM has managed to trash their reputation like this (Gordon Brown, the election that never was, and Theresa May 2017, there's been no way back for the PM.)BluestBlue said:
Devastated. It's going to kill us in the General Election next week...TheScreamingEagles said:
Chris Curtis of YouGov wroteCarlottaVance said:
That's unusual - the sitting PM usually has an advantage over the LotO.BluestBlue said:
Do you even bother to read this bollocks before reposting it? Boris and Starmer's scores are exactly the same.Scott_xP said:
This is rare.
Of the 237 occasions we have run this question over the past decade, this has just happened three times - when Corbyn caught May in the months following the 2017 election.
Since David Cameron became PM the Tory PM has led this metric for a decade about from a couple of months after the 2017 election.
So out of the last 121 months, the Tory PM has led this metric for 119 months.
No wonder BluestBlue is upset.
But I hear you, we need a plan just in case things don't work out. So if the Tories are 10 points underwater in late 2023, we might consider giving the leadership to someone more popular (Sunak, etc). If they're 20+ points underwater, we switch to Sunak vel sim. AND give Scotland immediate independence so that their MPs disappear and our effective majority increases by 40.
It always pays to think ahead...
HYUFD will have a fit.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Wonder how it'd be reported if a mob entirely obscuring their identities showed up and attacked police.
"A protest has taken place in London. We're waiting to discover the political affiliation of the protesters to find out if the protest was largely peaceful, or mostly violent."
https://twitter.com/dizzy_thinks/status/1272054315855814656
Turns out submitting to mob rule encourages mobs. Gasp!
Edited extra bit: weird thing just confirmed. Google 'British Prime Ministers' and you get mugshots of them. Except Churchill who has a blank space. Apparently his image is verboten.0 -
They will inadvertently end up fuelling the counter-reaction.Sandpit said:
What the f..., that's true. Also for international Google versions (I tried .com and .ae)Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
So. Fucking. Stupid.
The media and big platforms are utterly complicit in this.1 -
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.0 -
Ahem, sorry, Mr. Royale, missed that you'd posted that already.1
-
OK, so I was wrong on two counts if this report is correct:
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-12/transport-secretary-grant-shapps-leads-government-s-daily-coronavirus-press-conference/
1) The ‘mask’ is a ‘face covering’ and a scarf would do.
2) There will be face coverings handed out at key hubs - I imagine that means major railway and bus stations.
So there is method in this.
Penalty for failing to observe on being given warning - £100.0 -
Turning out exactly as predicted last week by Konstantin Kisin. There's genuinely going to be serious civil disorder if the reporting continues like this.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Wonder how it'd be reported if a mob entirely obscuring their identities showed up and attacked police.
"A protest has taken place in London. We're waiting to discover the political affiliation of the protesters to find out if the protest was largely peaceful, or mostly violent."
https://twitter.com/dizzy_thinks/status/1272054315855814656
Turns out submitting to mob rule encourages mobs. Gasp!
Edited extra bit: weird thing just confirmed. Google 'British Prime Ministers' and you get mugshots of them. Except Churchill who has a blank space. Apparently his image is verboten.
https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/12707118099057909761 -
Churchill on Mussolini:Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age. That would have affected everyone - worldwide.
If there's one thing likely to change my sympathies and bring me out onto the streets, it's targeting him.
Which is precisely why some are, of course.
“If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you [Mussolini] from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."
(Speech in Rome on 20 January, 1927, praising Mussolini)0 -
It’s ironic to think that both Churchill and Gandhi have been picked out for this, given that Churchill frequently made racist remarks about Gandhi. Indeed, that’s the principal reason he was not a member of the National Government until 1939, and was ignored as an hysterical warmonger when he started spouting off about Hitler.Casino_Royale said:
They will inadvertently end up fuelling the counter-reaction.Sandpit said:
What the f..., that's true. Also for international Google versions (I tried .com and .ae)Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
So. Fucking. Stupid.
The media and big platforms are utterly complicit in this.0 -
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.0 -
The far-left activists behind the BLM website are very clever.
They've taken advantage of tens of thousands of people whose hearts are in the right place and genuinely want to help do something to end racism, and build a better future.
So far, they've raised almost a million pounds through their website.
This is a huge injection of funds that will fund their anti-capitalist, anti-western and radical identity politics campaigns for years and years to come.
They can argue it's all legitimate because it's all set out publicly on their website, and it is. But any criticism of it is met with a chorus of "you're either with racists, or against them", which is quite brilliant when you think about it. It leaves people nowhere to go.
Don't give your money to them. Give it to grassroots community charities only.4 -
He also supported Mussolini in the annexation of Abyssinia and Japan in the invasion of Manchuria.StuartDickson said:
Churchill on Mussolini:Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age. That would have affected everyone - worldwide.
If there's one thing likely to change my sympathies and bring me out onto the streets, it's targeting him.
Which is precisely why some are, of course.
“If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you [Mussolini] from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."
(Speech in Rome on 20 January, 1927, praising Mussolini)
However, to quote Robert Blake, ‘he was right about Hitler, and that mattered more than anything else in 1940.’0 -
Probably closer to £500. It's three times the fine for deliberately pulling the emergency stop on a train, and five times a speeding ticket.MattW said:
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. I occasionally see bits of Triggernometry[sp] which can be quite interesting.
Turns out normalising political violence, bowing down to far left idiots, and submitting to mob rule and desecration of history isn't terribly clever. As predicted by everybody with enough of a backbone not to get down on their knees before a cause that thinks capitalism and Churchill are evil.2 -
Agitprop by The Ministry of Truth Google.0
-
Five times a standard speeding ticket would be £500. However, three times a fine for misuse Of the communication cord would be £3000, which I assume is because the UK railway network is a lot more crowded so holdups are more expensive.Sandpit said:
Probably closer to £500. It's three times the fine for deliberately pulling the emergency stop on a train, and five times a speeding ticket.MattW said:
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.1 -
China is pretty big. Thailand is over a thousand miles away from Wuhan. It's a bit like saying London is near Russia. But yes, masks. Nut-free snacks are interesting; presumably to protect classmates with nut allergies. Is it the same here?OldKingCole said:On masks, my Thai grandchildren were back at school tomorrow. Must though take a water bottle, a nut-free snack and two masks. One on, and a spare.
And Thailand, in spite of it's large Chinese-related population and proximity to China, has relatively few cases.0 -
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.0 -
In the range. I was working from median gross income for someone in work of £120 a day or so = 30k for 250 days ish.Sandpit said:
Probably closer to £500. It's three times the fine for deliberately pulling the emergency stop on a train, and five times a speeding ticket.MattW said:
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.
But enough such that you know about it.0 -
He didn't exactly do it on his own.Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
0 -
Large parts of the US never really locked down at all, and it is showing in those states' data.Nigelb said:
Can’t really answer the question about NY, though I suspect it has something to do with that having been so badly hit, they are continuing to abide by precautions to prevent a resurgence.Sandpit said:
Interesting to work out what NY are doing that's different, or is it simply that there's no-one left to get it there? Are many of the states in trouble now those where there have been various mass-scale gatherings in recent weeks?Nigelb said:List of US states most at risk of a rebound:
https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1271850296101285888
Many of the larger states (Texas, Florida) are already re-opening themselves quite dramatically, one Texan comedy club re-opened on Friday for example - not much evidence of social distancing or mask wearing here, in a small and crowded venue that's probably one of the most likely places to spread a virus around. IMO comedy clubs and nightclubs should be the very last places to re-open.
The re-openings in the Southern states seem to be in the face of as yet inadequate testing and tracking, and a relatively high rate of ongoing new infections.
It has proved the behavioural scientists right - for at least some populations - that lockdowns can’t be tolerated for any length of time.1 -
If enough people report an image it temporarily gets taken down for review. So probably trivial for a bot to make it look like this.rkrkrk said:
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.0 -
There's also a gap in the 1940 - 1945 period.rkrkrk said:
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
Two consistent "glitches" not very likely imo.1 -
Because Churchill was such a firm fan and ally of Mussolini later on when the chips were down, wasn't he?StuartDickson said:
Churchill on Mussolini:Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age. That would have affected everyone - worldwide.
If there's one thing likely to change my sympathies and bring me out onto the streets, it's targeting him.
Which is precisely why some are, of course.
“If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you [Mussolini] from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."
(Speech in Rome on 20 January, 1927, praising Mussolini)
Idiots like you are part of the problem.
You applaud any symbol of the British state that is attacked, because you are a fanatical nationalist - regardless of who it is and excuse those who do it - because of your simplistic enemy of my enemy is my friend attitude.
You know not what you unleash. You are storing up hell for yourself for the future.1 -
Yeah, you'd definitely know about it. For me, it's a couple of days' consultancy income, over what most would consider a triviality. If you're a low-income worker you'll probably get fired by your employer for gross misconduct (and deported).MattW said:
In the range. I was working from median gross income for someone in work of £120 a day or so = 30k for 250 days ish.Sandpit said:
Probably closer to £500. It's three times the fine for deliberately pulling the emergency stop on a train, and five times a speeding ticket.MattW said:
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.
But enough such that you know about it.
And this is an administrative fine from a policeman, every expat has a national ID card so it will simply be added to your record next time you need to interact with the government. If you want to challenge it, expect to turn up in court with your own lawyer and translator, so always easier just to pay it.
As you might expect, observance is high
Somewhat more difficult to enforce in more liberal jurisdictions such as the UK though, and almost impossible in somewhere like the USA - where there would be an organised campaign to clog up the courts with appeals and primary any politician who was involved in the process.0 -
That would explain it, the usual suspects whingeing.noneoftheabove said:
If enough people report an image it temporarily gets taken down for review. So probably trivial for a bot to make it look like this.rkrkrk said:
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
Wilson's first term as Prime Minister is also missing - the list seems to order them by their most recent period in office, hence the gaps.geoffw said:There's also a gap in the 1940 - 1945 period.
Two consistent "glitches" not very likely imo.
True, but there's only so far one can plausibly play down Churchill's role. Britain would probably have capitulated without him, and it is unlikely that this would've made the world a better place in the long run...Dura_Ace said:
He didn't exactly do it on his own.Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
0 -
By pure coincidence I came here to post a prediction that if some of these noisy protests continue and if institutions cave in we could end up with our first black prime minister - a conservative.2
-
Like many he was trying to be accommodating of the new politics and ambitions in the 1920s and early 1930s. Because everyone was desperate to avoid another war. Which included diplomatic words and rhetoric.ydoethur said:
He also supported Mussolini in the annexation of Abyssinia and Japan in the invasion of Manchuria.StuartDickson said:
Churchill on Mussolini:Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age. That would have affected everyone - worldwide.
If there's one thing likely to change my sympathies and bring me out onto the streets, it's targeting him.
Which is precisely why some are, of course.
“If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you [Mussolini] from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."
(Speech in Rome on 20 January, 1927, praising Mussolini)
However, to quote Robert Blake, ‘he was right about Hitler, and that mattered more than anything else in 1940.’
And then he woke up..
Churchill later said if he had to pick between two unpalatable alternatives of communism or fascism he'd, reluctantly, choose communism as the lesser of two evils.
Funny how that one doesn't get much of a look in at times like this.
2 -
For that second glitch I think it has a problem with PMs with more than one term in office: it does the same for Wilson’s first term.geoffw said:
There's also a gap in the 1940 - 1945 period.rkrkrk said:
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
Two consistent "glitches" not very likely imo.0 -
Must say that yesterday's London mob was truly depressing. We need shaven haired "patriots" to save us from Black People do we?
No...0 -
Churchill was wrong about many things. He was a flawed man.ydoethur said:
It’s ironic to think that both Churchill and Gandhi have been picked out for this, given that Churchill frequently made racist remarks about Gandhi. Indeed, that’s the principal reason he was not a member of the National Government until 1939, and was ignored as an hysterical warmonger when he started spouting off about Hitler.Casino_Royale said:
They will inadvertently end up fuelling the counter-reaction.Sandpit said:
What the f..., that's true. Also for international Google versions (I tried .com and .ae)Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
So. Fucking. Stupid.
The media and big platforms are utterly complicit in this.
But he was right about what really mattered when it mattered and did what needed to be done, which the whole world benefited from in the short, medium and long term.
That makes him a great man.0 -
Maybe the BLM/Google conspiracy goes deeper than we thought!Fysics_Teacher said:
For that second glitch I think it has a problem with PMs with more than one term in office: it does the same for Wilson’s first term.geoffw said:
There's also a gap in the 1940 - 1945 period.rkrkrk said:
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
Two consistent "glitches" not very likely imo.
0 -
Mr. Pioneers, aye, the little I've seen does look disturbing. Not as disturbing as the previous violent mob which also saw the police on their knees and running away, rather than enforcing the law.
How the police react to the next far left march of the iconoclasts may well determine whether this escalation continues or things start to calm.1 -
No-ones saying he did. He provided the inspiration and leadership behind which others could rally around, including allies.Dura_Ace said:
He didn't exactly do it on his own.Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
If Britain had been knocked out or pacified in 1940 then no meaningful level of Arctic conveys could have got to the Soviet Union, a fifth to a quarter of Axis divisions wouldn't have been preoccupied defending western Europe from British agitation and incursion and you could have forgotten the Americans coming in to save Europe from Nazism.
And a Nazi victory supreme in Europe wouldn't have stopped there.1 -
Basically, anyone on the left talking about Churchill this morning should just STFU (really, purely, and totally Shut The Fuck Up) and change the subject.
Unless they really do want a full-blown culture war, which some do of course.
There's nothing better calculated to piss off a majority of British moderate opinion and turn them against the movement.1 -
No glitch then, just a strangely pointless list.Black_Rook said:
Wilson's first term as Prime Minister is also missing - the list seems to order them by their most recent period in office, hence the gaps.geoffw said:There's also a gap in the 1940 - 1945 period.
Two consistent "glitches" not very likely imo.0 -
Equally depressing was Sean Thomas on here trying to reinvent himself as an impartial and dispassionate reporter on matters of race and protest.RochdalePioneers said:Must say that yesterday's London mob was truly depressing. We need shaven haired "patriots" to save us from Black People do we?
No...5 -
Yes, Triggernometry podcast.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, indeed. I occasionally see bits of Triggernometry[sp] which can be quite interesting.
Turns out normalising political violence, bowing down to far left idiots, and submitting to mob rule and desecration of history isn't terribly clever. As predicted by everybody with enough of a backbone not to get down on their knees before a cause that thinks capitalism and Churchill are evil.
https://twitter.com/triggerpod
It's quite amazing how much independent content online is now so much better that what is available through more mainstream channels.
We have comedians like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin who have turned long-form interviews into an art form not seen in a world of five-minute shouting matches on TV, and independent journalists like Tim Pool in the US who can see and explain both sides of almost any story - in sharp contrast to the openly biased news networks over there.
The huge difference in the last few years, is that these independents can now make a good living from publishing their own content (although they all have very strong opinions about technology platforms and freedom of speech).0 -
Indeed yes. Do you know, in this country you can drive sixty miles just to test your eyesight?Sandpit said:
Yeah, you'd definitely know about it. For me, it's a couple of days' consultancy income, over what most would consider a triviality. If you're a low-income worker you'll probably get fired by your employer for gross misconduct (and deported).MattW said:
In the range. I was working from median gross income for someone in work of £120 a day or so = 30k for 250 days ish.Sandpit said:
Probably closer to £500. It's three times the fine for deliberately pulling the emergency stop on a train, and five times a speeding ticket.MattW said:
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.
But enough such that you know about it.
And this is an administrative fine from a policeman, every expat has a national ID card so it will simply be added to your record next time you need to interact with the government. If you want to challenge it, expect to turn up in court with your own lawyer and translator, so always easier just to pay it.
As you might expect, observance is high
Somewhat more difficult to enforce in more liberal jurisdictions such as the UK though0 -
Hard to come by and expensive for decent facemasks, I just bought 10 , cost £55.ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)0 -
We should rename him Opportunity Knox...IanB2 said:
Equally depressing was Sean Thomas on here trying to reinvent himself as an impartial and dispassionate reporter on matters of race and protest.RochdalePioneers said:Must say that yesterday's London mob was truly depressing. We need shaven haired "patriots" to save us from Black People do we?
No...5 -
I don't think they have censored it. I inagine what's happened is that feature of Google results draws its pictures from somewhere like wikipedia or another site, and the Churchill pic has been renoved from there.Sandpit said:
What the f..., that's true. Also for international Google versions (I tried .com and .ae)Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, aye, a good development, and one that the media might consider when contemplating the strange mystery of why people spend more time watching Youtube than the news.
Topped with the likes of Peston's rambling opinions and regurgitated rumour-mongering and Maitlis kindly using her taxpayer-funded platform to let us know her own very important views.1 -
People aren't protesting against Churchill because of he was bros with Mussolini, or that he gassed Kurds or had the army shoot Welsh miners it's because he's a conspicuous symbol of the British establishment and what Mao called, The Four Olds. It's just the vibe rather than anything he did in particular.1
-
I've seen lots of videos of BLM protesters causing violence yesterday and yet the media is also telling me it was all from racist counter-protesters.
Also the difference in tone from the BBC to describe the two groups is absurd.
Do they take us all for idiots?2 -
Interesting you are also comparing this to the cultural revolution, which is the parallel I drew last weekend.Dura_Ace said:People aren't protesting against Churchill because of he was bros with Mussolini, or that he gassed Kurds or had the army shoot Welsh miners it's because he's a conspicuous symbol of the British establishment and what Mao called, The Four Olds. It's just the vibe rather than anything he did in particular.
Of course the Cultural Revolution had nothing to do with the Four Olds. It was Mao’s way of hitting back and regaining power, and particularly of getting at Liu and Deng for daring to have been right about how incompetent he was.0 -
And all yesterday’s violence was the fault of BLM apparently. In the way that a wife beater’s actions cab be justified as being the fault of his nagging wife.IanB2 said:
Equally depressing was Sean Thomas on here trying to reinvent himself as an impartial and dispassionate reporter on matters of race and protest.RochdalePioneers said:Must say that yesterday's London mob was truly depressing. We need shaven haired "patriots" to save us from Black People do we?
No...1 -
Thailand has a small border with China, and LOTS of Chinese tourists, as well as a substantial ethnic Chinese minority. As an example Thaksin Shinawatra, has several Chinese among his recent ancestors.DecrepiterJohnL said:
China is pretty big. Thailand is over a thousand miles away from Wuhan. It's a bit like saying London is near Russia. But yes, masks. Nut-free snacks are interesting; presumably to protect classmates with nut allergies. Is it the same here?OldKingCole said:On masks, my Thai grandchildren were back at school tomorrow. Must though take a water bottle, a nut-free snack and two masks. One on, and a spare.
And Thailand, in spite of it's large Chinese-related population and proximity to China, has relatively few cases.0 -
Do you mean it's not obligatory?ydoethur said:
Indeed yes. Do you know, in this country you can drive sixty miles just to test your eyesight?Sandpit said:
Yeah, you'd definitely know about it. For me, it's a couple of days' consultancy income, over what most would consider a triviality. If you're a low-income worker you'll probably get fired by your employer for gross misconduct (and deported).MattW said:
In the range. I was working from median gross income for someone in work of £120 a day or so = 30k for 250 days ish.Sandpit said:
Probably closer to £500. It's three times the fine for deliberately pulling the emergency stop on a train, and five times a speeding ticket.MattW said:
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.
But enough such that you know about it.
And this is an administrative fine from a policeman, every expat has a national ID card so it will simply be added to your record next time you need to interact with the government. If you want to challenge it, expect to turn up in court with your own lawyer and translator, so always easier just to pay it.
As you might expect, observance is high
Somewhat more difficult to enforce in more liberal jurisdictions such as the UK though0 -
Dunno. I’m blessed with good eyesight, I’ve never needed to test it.ClippP said:
Do you mean it's not obligatory?ydoethur said:
Indeed yes. Do you know, in this country you can drive sixty miles just to test your eyesight?Sandpit said:
Yeah, you'd definitely know about it. For me, it's a couple of days' consultancy income, over what most would consider a triviality. If you're a low-income worker you'll probably get fired by your employer for gross misconduct (and deported).MattW said:
In the range. I was working from median gross income for someone in work of £120 a day or so = 30k for 250 days ish.Sandpit said:
Probably closer to £500. It's three times the fine for deliberately pulling the emergency stop on a train, and five times a speeding ticket.MattW said:
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.
But enough such that you know about it.
And this is an administrative fine from a policeman, every expat has a national ID card so it will simply be added to your record next time you need to interact with the government. If you want to challenge it, expect to turn up in court with your own lawyer and translator, so always easier just to pay it.
As you might expect, observance is high
Somewhat more difficult to enforce in more liberal jurisdictions such as the UK though0 -
IF, and it's big if on purpose, the films and so on are correct Lord Halifax was the alternative choice as PM and he was for a 'negotiated peace' with Hitler. Who...... allegedly and for a while at any rate ...... wasn't that keen on invading, although the force was being readied.Black_Rook said:
That would explain it, the usual suspects whingeing.noneoftheabove said:
If enough people report an image it temporarily gets taken down for review. So probably trivial for a bot to make it look like this.rkrkrk said:
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
Wilson's first term as Prime Minister is also missing - the list seems to order them by their most recent period in office, hence the gaps.geoffw said:There's also a gap in the 1940 - 1945 period.
Two consistent "glitches" not very likely imo.
True, but there's only so far one can plausibly play down Churchill's role. Britain would probably have capitulated without him, and it is unlikely that this would've made the world a better place in the long run...Dura_Ace said:
He didn't exactly do it on his own.Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
Whether Halifax's 'negotiated peace' would have worked we'll never know. Hitler would still have attacked Russia.
0 -
More appeasement. Not sure that would have ended well.OldKingCole said:
IF, and it's big if on purpose, the films and so on are correct Lord Halifax was the alternative choice as PM and he was for a 'negotiated peace' with Hitler. Who...... allegedly and for a while at any rate ...... wasn't that keen on invading, although the force was being readied.Black_Rook said:
That would explain it, the usual suspects whingeing.noneoftheabove said:
If enough people report an image it temporarily gets taken down for review. So probably trivial for a bot to make it look like this.rkrkrk said:
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
Wilson's first term as Prime Minister is also missing - the list seems to order them by their most recent period in office, hence the gaps.geoffw said:There's also a gap in the 1940 - 1945 period.
Two consistent "glitches" not very likely imo.
True, but there's only so far one can plausibly play down Churchill's role. Britain would probably have capitulated without him, and it is unlikely that this would've made the world a better place in the long run...Dura_Ace said:
He didn't exactly do it on his own.Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
Whether Halifax's 'negotiated peace' would have worked we'll never know. Hitler would still have attacked Russia.0 -
Unfortunately your time will comeydoethur said:
Dunno. I’m blessed with good eyesight, I’ve never needed to test it.ClippP said:
Do you mean it's not obligatory?ydoethur said:
Indeed yes. Do you know, in this country you can drive sixty miles just to test your eyesight?Sandpit said:
Yeah, you'd definitely know about it. For me, it's a couple of days' consultancy income, over what most would consider a triviality. If you're a low-income worker you'll probably get fired by your employer for gross misconduct (and deported).MattW said:
In the range. I was working from median gross income for someone in work of £120 a day or so = 30k for 250 days ish.Sandpit said:
Probably closer to £500. It's three times the fine for deliberately pulling the emergency stop on a train, and five times a speeding ticket.MattW said:
Cheers.Sandpit said:
I'm in Dubai, UAE. Fine is 3,000 Dirhams, $800 USD, £650. That's a couple of days' wages for a 'local' Emirati. a week's wages for a middle-class expat job, a couple of months' wages for a working-class job.MattW said:
Clarify: meant where Mr @Sandpit lives, and it should be dollars?ydoethur said:
In my case it’s an appreciable chunk of it.MattW said:
How does £800 compare to income?ydoethur said:
Compulsory on all public transport as of tomorrow.Sandpit said:
Masks are undoubtedly useful against the spread of disease, where I'm living now it's illegal to not wear one outside the house - with a $800 fine for a first offence.Nigelb said:
No problem.Sandpit said:
Thanks for posting these, very useful reading for those of us trying to understand what's going on from the science point of view. The level of understanding appears to be quickly growing, thankfully.Nigelb said:A Cambridge study, for those who care.
The arguments against masks look to have been fairly comprehensively knocked down. Given it’s a simple and low cost intervention, which is both effective on its own, and additive to any other intervention, I don’t get the lack of enthusiasm for them.
Or outright hostility...
ttps://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1271861460407160832
Most of the arguments against them are either supply issues (governments wanted to prevent panic buying of them during the early stages, when they were needed urgently for clinical settings) and user training issues (people wearing disposable paper masks for a week, not washing re-usable masks etc).
AIUI they're being made compulsory on London transport (and handed out for free) so we should be seeing an uptick in mask use in crowded environments in the UK - certainly lots of masks visible among the various groups of protesters in the news yesterday.
Then, yes, there's the USA - where many people are hyper-partisan, contrarian, individualistic and completely distrustful of authority, a mindset not really suited to dealing with a pandemic on a number of levels.
I know nothing about them being handed out for free though.
However, if there is not clear guidance on where to get them, you wonder how effective punitive fines will be.
(Yes, I know it’s very patronising to suggest people are incapable of finding that out themselves. Unfortunately, it’s also true.)
IIRC he is somewhere expat. Out East?
Masks are on sale in supermarkets and pharmacies, cost $15 for 50 or $0.5 each. Anyone working has to be provided them by their employer.
So the equivalent of say £250 here vs income.
But enough such that you know about it.
And this is an administrative fine from a policeman, every expat has a national ID card so it will simply be added to your record next time you need to interact with the government. If you want to challenge it, expect to turn up in court with your own lawyer and translator, so always easier just to pay it.
As you might expect, observance is high
Somewhat more difficult to enforce in more liberal jurisdictions such as the UK though0 -
Agreed that will be my guess. Someone may have updated the photo and so Google's link is dead and that is the glitch that results until their algorithm fixed it. Nothing deliberate.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't think they have censored it. I inagine what's happened is that feature of Google results draws its pictures from somewhere like wikipedia or another site, and the Churchill pic has been renoved from there.Sandpit said:
What the f..., that's true. Also for international Google versions (I tried .com and .ae)Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.0 -
-
Germany declaring war on the US might have been a key reason for getting involved.Casino_Royale said:
No-ones saying he did. He provided the inspiration and leadership behind which others could rally around, including allies.Dura_Ace said:
He didn't exactly do it on his own.Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
If Britain had been knocked out or pacified in 1940 then no meaningful level of Arctic conveys could have got to the Soviet Union, a fifth to a quarter of Axis divisions wouldn't have been preoccupied defending western Europe from British agitation and incursion and you could have forgotten the Americans coming in to save Europe from Nazism.
And a Nazi victory supreme in Europe wouldn't have stopped there.0 -
I think my views on the UK MSM are already reasonably well-known.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, aye, a good development, and one that the media might consider when contemplating the strange mystery of why people spend more time watching Youtube than the news.
Topped with the likes of Peston's rambling opinions and regurgitated rumour-mongering and Maitlis kindly using her taxpayer-funded platform to let us know her own very important views.
The worrying thing is that the bosses of Peston, Kuenessburg and Rigby obviously think they've been doing a good job. Although even the BBC have had to admit that the Maitlis diatribe against the government was somewhat out of order.
As someone who works in IT and has a keen interest in aviation, almost every single MSM report on those technical fields contains many and often serious inaccuracies, yet I am somehow expected to take the rest of their content - where I am wanting them to inform me - as gospel? On subjects like epidemiology?
As I've said many times before, the government briefings should have been attended by scientific journalists, and that still holds. Having political journalists, mostly still very sore from Brexit, lead the questioning is worse than useless when it comes to actually informing the public, but does a great job for their own egos.
Even now, with the emergence from lockdown much more political by nature than going into lockdown, there's still no genuinely critical thinking going on within the media, and international comparisons are only being made as reasons to attack the government. Why is no-one asking why in the UK school reopening has become a political issue because of activist unions, whereas elsewhere in the world schools are already back open?
Watching from afar, it appears that only in the UK and USA are the media so unthinkingly critical of government in the face of a pandemic, in most other countries there is much more of a war spirit and a collective wish to get things back to normal.
Anyway, only 21 days now until the first Grand Prix of the season. Nyyooommmm!1 -
His hair is trending toward mid-period Karadzic.Scott_xP said:0 -
Yes, our roving reporter was particularly exciteable yesterday.IanB2 said:
Equally depressing was Sean Thomas on here trying to reinvent himself as an impartial and dispassionate reporter on matters of race and protest.RochdalePioneers said:Must say that yesterday's London mob was truly depressing. We need shaven haired "patriots" to save us from Black People do we?
No...0 -
Huh?ThomasNashe said:
And all yesterday’s violence was the fault of BLM apparently. In the way that a wife beater’s actions cab be justified as being the fault of his nagging wife.IanB2 said:
Equally depressing was Sean Thomas on here trying to reinvent himself as an impartial and dispassionate reporter on matters of race and protest.RochdalePioneers said:Must say that yesterday's London mob was truly depressing. We need shaven haired "patriots" to save us from Black People do we?
No...0 -
-
Except that Churchill's picture is very much still there on Wikipedia.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't think they have censored it. I inagine what's happened is that feature of Google results draws its pictures from somewhere like wikipedia or another site, and the Churchill pic has been renoved from there.Sandpit said:
What the f..., that's true. Also for international Google versions (I tried .com and .ae)Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
It's definitely worth asking Google for an explanation though, even if it's more likely to be cock-up than conspiracy.0 -
In lighter news, the most read story on the BBC during a pandemic and week of mass protests is "Woman hatches ducks from Waitrose eggs".
Poland accidentally invading Czechia last month caught my eye too!0 -
A relative of mine once did something slightly newsworthy and had a small filler article about him in one of the national newspapers - admittedly gutter press.Sandpit said:
As someone who works in IT and has a keen interest in aviation, almost every single MSM report on those technical fields contains many and often serious inaccuracies, yet I am somehow expected to take the rest of their content - where I am wanting them to inform me - as gospel? On subjects like epidemiology?
We counted five errors in six lines.
1 -
Mr. Nashe, it's more akin to a wife who slaps her husband, gets slapped in return, then the police decide her slap is worthy of a quick kneel and his deserves a night in the cells.
Turns out the law should be enforced and enforced equally. If only people had said...1 -
Quite seriously, your best ever work! Respect.ydoethur said:
We should rename him Opportunity Knox...IanB2 said:
Equally depressing was Sean Thomas on here trying to reinvent himself as an impartial and dispassionate reporter on matters of race and protest.RochdalePioneers said:Must say that yesterday's London mob was truly depressing. We need shaven haired "patriots" to save us from Black People do we?
No...2 -
Well, the ‘films’ are correct and Halifax was the alternative. There are about three accounts of what happened, but there was simply no third figure of comparable stature at the time. The most plausible account states that Halifax himself felt it would be impossible to lead a government from the Lords.OldKingCole said:
IF, and it's big if on purpose, the films and so on are correct Lord Halifax was the alternative choice as PM and he was for a 'negotiated peace' with Hitler. Who...... allegedly and for a while at any rate ...... wasn't that keen on invading, although the force was being readied.Black_Rook said:
That would explain it, the usual suspects whingeing.noneoftheabove said:
If enough people report an image it temporarily gets taken down for review. So probably trivial for a bot to make it look like this.rkrkrk said:
Website glitch seems a more likely explanation.Casino_Royale said:Google has censored Churchill.
Try it yourself.
Wilson's first term as Prime Minister is also missing - the list seems to order them by their most recent period in office, hence the gaps.geoffw said:There's also a gap in the 1940 - 1945 period.
Two consistent "glitches" not very likely imo.
True, but there's only so far one can plausibly play down Churchill's role. Britain would probably have capitulated without him, and it is unlikely that this would've made the world a better place in the long run...Dura_Ace said:
He didn't exactly do it on his own.Casino_Royale said:I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
Whether Halifax's 'negotiated peace' would have worked we'll never know. Hitler would still have attacked Russia.
Interestingly Halifax himself wasn’t considered an arch appeaser. He isn’t mentioned in Guilty Men, for example. He was the key driver of the guarantee to Poland. He also became Churchill’s deputy for a brief time after Chamberlain’s death. There is a suggestion that he wanted to make peace not because he was sympathetic to Hitler, whom he knew well and despised utterly* but because he believed Britain had no choice and that the war was over. In this he proved, fortunately, to be wrong, but it wasn’t a ridiculous position at the time.
*Oddly though - and it says much about him and not in a good way - he rather liked Goebbels.0 -
I've literally read this on Facebook. There definitely weren't shaven haired gammon fucks doing Nazi salutes by the Churchill statue. There definitely wasn't an angry white mob rampaging through London fighting every cop they could find. Because BLM are Marxists and who do these black left wingers think they are?MattW said:
Huh?ThomasNashe said:
And all yesterday’s violence was the fault of BLM apparently. In the way that a wife beater’s actions cab be justified as being the fault of his nagging wife.IanB2 said:
Equally depressing was Sean Thomas on here trying to reinvent himself as an impartial and dispassionate reporter on matters of race and protest.RochdalePioneers said:Must say that yesterday's London mob was truly depressing. We need shaven haired "patriots" to save us from Black People do we?
No...0
This discussion has been closed.