Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Trump responded when he was asked by Fox New what his prio

12357

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2020
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    Survation confirms polls remain basically unchanged

    A new poll? You could share it...
    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1276558018684076037?s=09
    Yet again virtually all the movement since 2019 LD to Labour, Tories unchanged
    Yet again you make the same mistake. If you look at the polls since April, all of the Labour increase is mirrored by the Tory decrease
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election
    I said since GE19, I was correct.

    The fact some GE19 LDs moved briefly to the Tories and are now voting Labour under Starmer does not change that
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Foxy said:

    LadyG said:

    It is quite shocking to discover that the State of Mississippi STILL has the Confederate emblem in its official flag (though maybe not for much longer)

    https://twitter.com/lindsaywise/status/1276572924250636289?s=20

    America really is a different country

    Indeed, after all a flag that incorporates the flag of a country that tries to leave the USA.
    It isn't even the flag of the Confederatcy, it was a battle ensign. It is a startlingly aggressive decision to wave that flag.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    LadyG said:
    Presumably it would only be illegal if the police could not demonstrate that a non-discriminatory general rule was in place.

    They could rationally argue that only one mass demonstration can be held at one time while assuring adequate social distancing because of [fill in the blank list of constraints]. They would, of course, have to prove that the counter-demonstration would be allowed on a different date following the same approval and logistical processes as the BLM demonstration did.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:
    British history focusing on foreign policy including slavery from around 1800 onwards was the only thing my A level course did other than Russians, Nazis or the civil rights movement.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    I presume he is making a joke around what people used to say about how Corbyn should have been ahead.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Floater said:
    He really hasn't has he.

    I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
    I think he's doing a good job :)
    He needs a huge drop in membership to convince a few million Tory voters that he has changed the party. He has a very long road, but a decent start.

    Starmer's great challenge is going to be getting his lost Red Wall voters back without alienating Labour's existing core of young voters, metro left-libs, socialists and ethnic minorities. The more concessions he offers to the social conservative vote on, for example, immigration policy, policing and identity issues, the more he risks the core voters drifting off to the Greens, SNP/PC, minor Left parties and possibly the Lib Dems, or sitting on their hands.

    The possible alternative - making a big play for wealthier social liberals in Southern England - is also deeply problematic. Many of them will need convincing of Labour's economic competence, some at least won't want to be pumped for extra taxes, and there are actually rather few Southern seats available to Labour on modest swings. Out of the top 50 Labour targets arranged by swing required to capture, only a dozen are down South:

    Kensington (2), Chipping Barnet (10), Chingford & Woodford Green (13), Peterborough (27), Stroud (29), Hastings & Rye (37), Watford (41), Hendon (42), Wycombe (43), Truro & Falmouth (44), Reading West (46), Southampton Itchen (50)

    There are only about another dozen Southern seats in the list from targets 51-100, so the Tories could afford to ship the lot and still get home with a decent majority, and these more distant targets require swings of 5% or more to capture. And then there's the matter of simultaneously trying to defend what's left of the Red Wall, where there are a fair number of surviving Labour MPs in the North and the West Midlands sitting on small majorities themselves.

    So, we're back to how he appeals to enough of Labour's lost former core vote to get back into the game without losing his current supporters. This will not be easy.
    Today's Survation sees a swing of 2.5% from Tory to Labour since 2019, enough to see Red Wall seats like Blyth Valley, Durham NW, Bury N and S and Bridgend and West Bromwich East go back to Labour, though the Tories would still win with a narrower majority

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
    Leaving aside the issue of the relevance of polls, especially this far from an election, if an overall swing of this extent does occur then it's not going to be uniform. If the voters are moving in the wrong parts of the country then Labour could simply end up with more strong second places in the South and even bigger majorities in London, whilst staying still or even going backwards in terms of its Parliamentary representation.

    As I think most of us will appreciate, FPTP confers a hefty premium upon parties that maximise the efficiency of their voter distribution, and exacts a hefty penalty upon those that do not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Floater said:
    He really hasn't has he.

    I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
    I think he's doing a good job :)
    He needs a huge drop in membership to convince a few million Tory voters that he has changed the party. He has a very long road, but a decent start.

    Starmer's great challenge is going to be getting his lost Red Wall voters back without alienating Labour's existing core of young voters, metro left-libs, socialists and ethnic minorities. The more concessions he offers to the social conservative vote on, for example, immigration policy, policing and identity issues, the more he risks the core voters drifting off to the Greens, SNP/PC, minor Left parties and possibly the Lib Dems, or sitting on their hands.

    The possible alternative - making a big play for wealthier social liberals in Southern England - is also deeply problematic. Many of them will need convincing of Labour's economic competence, some at least won't want to be pumped for extra taxes, and there are actually rather few Southern seats available to Labour on modest swings. Out of the top 50 Labour targets arranged by swing required to capture, only a dozen are down South:

    Kensington (2), Chipping Barnet (10), Chingford & Woodford Green (13), Peterborough (27), Stroud (29), Hastings & Rye (37), Watford (41), Hendon (42), Wycombe (43), Truro & Falmouth (44), Reading West (46), Southampton Itchen (50)

    There are only about another dozen Southern seats in the list from targets 51-100, so the Tories could afford to ship the lot and still get home with a decent majority, and these more distant targets require swings of 5% or more to capture. And then there's the matter of simultaneously trying to defend what's left of the Red Wall, where there are a fair number of surviving Labour MPs in the North and the West Midlands sitting on small majorities themselves.

    So, we're back to how he appeals to enough of Labour's lost former core vote to get back into the game without losing his current supporters. This will not be easy.
    Today's Survation sees a swing of 2.5% from Tory to Labour since 2019, enough to see Red Wall seats like Blyth Valley, Durham NW, Bury N and S and Bridgend and West Bromwich East go back to Labour, though the Tories would still win with a narrower majority

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
    I have no idea how uniform swing (or lack of) would play out but Labour would struggle to get more than 230-240 seats on today's polls I reckon. I'd only be be confident of Labour regaining seats like High Peak, Kensington, Keighley, Dewsbury, Bury N&S, Warrington S Keighley, Gedling, Bolton NE etc and a small no.of seats with a large LD vote to squeeze like Southport and possibly Watford.
    Labour would get 227 seats on UNS on today's Survation

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    DougSeal said:

    If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.

    Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.

    Its outrageous.

    The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
    It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?

    We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
    Counterpoint: it's good news that treatment is getting better, and there's no reason to think that process won't continue for a while longer. So holding off infections until the survival odds are as good as they can reasonably be is a wise move.
    Its a good point, but economically its now getting quite late in the day. At some juncture very soon people are going to have to live with the risk of corona or see their standards of living plummet permanently and their liberties shrink.

    Its difficult to put the hit on the economy into a proper context because it is so much bigger than and different to anything we have experienced before. But its hyperbole to say we are risking living standards plummeting permanently.

    If we produced literally nothing for a year, the impact over a lifetime is pretty trivial. Plenty of people are unemployed for a year or two during their career but end up very well off financially by retirement.

    Id say we are likely to take a near permanent small hit after a sharp shock this year. The impact over a lifetime will almost certainly be below 5%, perhaps 2-3% assuming we get back to normal by end of 2021.
    Consider that the developed world managed Total War for five years in the 1940's. Consider the wealth that was literally blown up in that time.

    "Never Had It So Good" was just over a decade later.
    Quite. And the Roaring Twenties immediately after a previous war on top of (by some measures worse than the current) pandemic.
    Oh I think the 1918 Pandemic was miles worse than this one. But it is also worth noting that the Roaring Twenties were to a large extent, driven by an unsustainable financial bubble which burst in October 1929
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Andy_JS said:
    Starmer playing a blinder once again :smile:

    Maybe the Great British Public aren't as keen on kneeling as they've been told they have to be?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Alistair said:

    LadyG said:

    It is quite shocking to discover that the State of Mississippi STILL has the Confederate emblem in its official flag (though maybe not for much longer)

    https://twitter.com/lindsaywise/status/1276572924250636289?s=20

    America really is a different country

    The wacky thing is the flag was adopted in 1894, 29 years after the traitorous Confederacy was defeated.

    It's yet another piece of evidence that the whole "heritage" and history defence is a load of bullshit.
    There's plenty of benign symbols which are not as historical as made up to be as well of course, and people get really upset about those being challenged too. But it is surprising so close to the civil war people were already able to formally adopt its trappings again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    LadyG said:

    Alistair said:

    LadyG said:

    It is quite shocking to discover that the State of Mississippi STILL has the Confederate emblem in its official flag (though maybe not for much longer)

    https://twitter.com/lindsaywise/status/1276572924250636289?s=20

    America really is a different country

    The wacky thing is the flag was adopted in 1894, 29 years after the traitorous Confederacy was defeated.

    It's yet another piece of evidence that the whole "heritage" and history defence is a load of bullshit.
    Well, it depends which bit of history you are talking about.

    I cannot see a moral defence for statues and symbols commemorating Confederate values, especially if they were installed AFTER the Civil War. So, yes, in this case, agreed.

    But the iconoclasts are going after Thomas Jefferson, Geo Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt - and beyond that, to virtually anything that seems vaguely "white" and "patriarchal". Like Christianity. That is where they will get a dangerously violent pushback, if they persist.
    Indeed the Black community is strongly Christian
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Floater said:
    He really hasn't has he.

    I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
    I think he's doing a good job :)
    He needs a huge drop in membership to convince a few million Tory voters that he has changed the party. He has a very long road, but a decent start.

    Starmer's great challenge is going to be getting his lost Red Wall voters back without alienating Labour's existing core of young voters, metro left-libs, socialists and ethnic minorities. The more concessions he offers to the social conservative vote on, for example, immigration policy, policing and identity issues, the more he risks the core voters drifting off to the Greens, SNP/PC, minor Left parties and possibly the Lib Dems, or sitting on their hands.

    The possible alternative - making a big play for wealthier social liberals in Southern England - is also deeply problematic. Many of them will need convincing of Labour's economic competence, some at least won't want to be pumped for extra taxes, and there are actually rather few Southern seats available to Labour on modest swings. Out of the top 50 Labour targets arranged by swing required to capture, only a dozen are down South:

    Kensington (2), Chipping Barnet (10), Chingford & Woodford Green (13), Peterborough (27), Stroud (29), Hastings & Rye (37), Watford (41), Hendon (42), Wycombe (43), Truro & Falmouth (44), Reading West (46), Southampton Itchen (50)

    There are only about another dozen Southern seats in the list from targets 51-100, so the Tories could afford to ship the lot and still get home with a decent majority, and these more distant targets require swings of 5% or more to capture. And then there's the matter of simultaneously trying to defend what's left of the Red Wall, where there are a fair number of surviving Labour MPs in the North and the West Midlands sitting on small majorities themselves.

    So, we're back to how he appeals to enough of Labour's lost former core vote to get back into the game without losing his current supporters. This will not be easy.
    Today's Survation sees a swing of 2.5% from Tory to Labour since 2019, enough to see Red Wall seats like Blyth Valley, Durham NW, Bury N and S and Bridgend and West Bromwich East go back to Labour, though the Tories would still win with a narrower majority

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
    I have no idea how uniform swing (or lack of) would play out but Labour would struggle to get more than 230-240 seats on today's polls I reckon. I'd only be be confident of Labour regaining seats like High Peak, Kensington, Keighley, Dewsbury, Bury N&S, Warrington S Keighley, Gedling, Bolton NE etc and a small no.of seats with a large LD vote to squeeze like Southport and possibly Watford.
    Labour would get 227 seats on UNS on today's Survation

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
    I'd expect the swings from 2019 to continue in most seats at the next election. So the Tories will struggle to hold the likes of Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Chingford, etc, but the Red Wall seats will mostly stay Tory.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    HYUFD said:

    Yokes said:

    I posted on here over a month ago that Trump was finished and that Biden would have to kill a child for Trump to have a chance.

    It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.

    The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.

    What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.

    Until Biden gets well over 50% it is clear that just as in 2016 there are still a lot of silent Trump voters
    If they are silent, how do you know they exist?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Illegal pornography certainly, though I trust Desmond only dealt in legal porn
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,003
    edited June 2020
    nichomar said:

    If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000

    I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.

    He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible

    As for long haul not a chance

    Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815

    Andy_JS said:
    Starmer playing a blinder once again :smile:

    Maybe the Great British Public aren't as keen on kneeling as they've been told they have to be?
    Yes I think there were a lot of people quietly seething about that.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Evening all :)

    It's worth repeating but the key to the American election is and always has been the white vote. In 2016, 70% of the 137 million or so ballots were cast by whites.

    Trump won that group 58-37. He won white men by 63-31 and white women 53-43. That was the basis of his success.

    In sheer vote terms, Trump beat Clinton by some 15 million among whites but lost because of the huge margins by which Clinton won among blacks (12%) , hispanics (11%) and others (7%).

    Now, tonight's NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll has Trump leading 51-45 among whites. That's a swing of 7.5% to Biden and would mean on the 2016 figures Trump wins the white votes by less than 6 million so would lose nationally (if the votes remained the same) by 12 million in the national vote.

    How does a candidate lose by 12 million and yet win the EV? It's not easy. On the above figures, I estimate a 413-125 win for Biden in the EV. It;s hard to see Trump going any lower so any trading on EV spreads should bear that in mind.

    Among black voters, Biden leads 91-5 (compared to Clinton's 88-8) but Trump does have some grounds for optimism among hispanic voters where he trails 59-39 but compared to the 65-29 he lost by last time it's a real improvement.

    But then it's numbers - moving up ten points among a group which provides 11% of the vote isn't much help when you are down seven points among the group which provides 70% of the vote.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Alistair said:
    Is his factory still open? :p
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    LadyG said:

    nichomar said:

    If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000

    I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the i hour flight. Additional for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.

    He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible

    As for long haul not a chance

    Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
    It also means the end of Business Class, as a business model. Why pay an extra £3k for a long haul flight if you are in discomfort the whole way, anyhow, and you don't get lovely food and champagne, just water?!

    This will upend the industry, if it persists.
    At least in first you are more than 2m away from everyone. Just need to arrange for a private air supply.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Andy_JS said:
    LOL!

    Still meaningless like the others but curious how the thread header on this one will discuss it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    Alistair said:
    He's very good at what he does but this is proof of why people should stick to their area of expertise.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    LadyG said:

    It is quite shocking to discover that the State of Mississippi STILL has the Confederate emblem in its official flag (though maybe not for much longer)

    https://twitter.com/lindsaywise/status/1276572924250636289?s=20

    America really is a different country

    The wacky thing is the flag was adopted in 1894, 29 years after the traitorous Confederacy was defeated.

    It's yet another piece of evidence that the whole "heritage" and history defence is a load of bullshit.
    There's plenty of benign symbols which are not as historical as made up to be as well of course, and people get really upset about those being challenged too. But it is surprising so close to the civil war people were already able to formally adopt its trappings again.
    The history of Reconstruction, its failure in the face of southern terrorism and political intransigence and the emergence of the revisionist Lost Cause mythology is a fascinating period of history.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000

    I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.

    He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible

    As for long haul not a chance

    Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
    I only wear it when at doctors or hospital, in the supermarket or other shop or I walk about inside a bar or restaurant, probably on average one hour a day. It’s not too bad even though it was 31+ today. The streets aren’t busy enough to compromise the 1.5 m so not needed on when out.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Someone helpfully pointed out that mass gatherings are still illegal. Why are they protecting an illegal gathering?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    British history focusing on foreign policy including slavery from around 1800 onwards was the only thing my A level course did other than Russians, Nazis or the civil rights movement.
    I'm struggling to recall what was in my GCSE syllabus (this is rather a long time ago now,) but I strongly suspect that it was all 20th century and consisted principally of the rise of totalitarianism in Italy, Germany and Russia between the wars, and possibly a bit about the Great Depression in the US. I'm not sure all that much of it was even about Britain TBH.

    History is such a vast subject that I suppose you're not going to be able to cover very much of it for school exams if you're going to get into any great depth, but I think that any treatment over the course of a child's whole secondary school career should certainly include significant time devoted to the Empire and what flowed from its existence.

    One point that some people have been raising during the whole statue toppling episode is that there's no national museum devoted to English history, British history, or the history of the British Empire - the British Museum being, of course an institution that's very much global in scope. It'd certainly be a worthwhile project for a philanthropic billionaire to underwrite.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    HYUFD said:

    Yokes said:

    I posted on here over a month ago that Trump was finished and that Biden would have to kill a child for Trump to have a chance.

    It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.

    The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.

    What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.

    Until Biden gets well over 50% it is clear that just as in 2016 there are still a lot of silent Trump voters
    Is that true?

    Let's use the RCP poll of polls...

    In 2016, Clinton 2.7% more than her final voting average, while Trump got 3.9% more.

    So, there may have been some shy Trump supporters, but they just narrowed the gap by 1.2%.

    The other important thing to remember is that most of the people who say "I'm not sure" won't actually vote. That's why both Clinton and Trump rose.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    It's worth repeating but the key to the American election is and always has been the white vote. In 2016, 70% of the 137 million or so ballots were cast by whites.

    Trump won that group 58-37. He won white men by 63-31 and white women 53-43. That was the basis of his success.

    In sheer vote terms, Trump beat Clinton by some 15 million among whites but lost because of the huge margins by which Clinton won among blacks (12%) , hispanics (11%) and others (7%).

    Now, tonight's NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll has Trump leading 51-45 among whites. That's a swing of 7.5% to Biden and would mean on the 2016 figures Trump wins the white votes by less than 6 million so would lose nationally (if the votes remained the same) by 12 million in the national vote.

    How does a candidate lose by 12 million and yet win the EV? It's not easy. On the above figures, I estimate a 413-125 win for Biden in the EV. It;s hard to see Trump going any lower so any trading on EV spreads should bear that in mind.

    Among black voters, Biden leads 91-5 (compared to Clinton's 88-8) but Trump does have some grounds for optimism among hispanic voters where he trails 59-39 but compared to the 65-29 he lost by last time it's a real improvement.

    But then it's numbers - moving up ten points among a group which provides 11% of the vote isn't much help when you are down seven points among the group which provides 70% of the vote.

    Not entirely, in terms of the white vote Romney got 59% in 2012, higher than the 58% Trump got in 2016 and Bush got in 2004 but he still lost
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited June 2020

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.

    Planned protests must inform the Police 6 days in advance of the protest. If BLM have done that but nobody else have then others are acting illegally if they do their own protest: https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-know
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    Yokes said:

    I posted on here over a month ago that Trump was finished and that Biden would have to kill a child for Trump to have a chance.

    It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.

    The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.

    What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.

    Until Biden gets well over 50% it is clear that just as in 2016 there are still a lot of silent Trump voters
    If they are silent, how do you know they exist?
    As most of them voted for Trump in 2016
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    MrEd said:

    Hopefully, none are serious injuries.

    However, how long before we hear the phrase "mental issues" being mentioned?
    5 4 3 2 1 - incoming - Germany have raised that to an art form - but they are getting plenty of practice
    The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Let's say I am an islamic fundamentalist but with a balanced mind. Yes, I want to overthrow the west and establish a caliphate and push Israel into the sea. But then perhaps I also want to play for Arsenal and get a good job in sales and I just get on with my life as normal while subordinating my less likely aspirations because, frankly, I don't think it will happen and it would be immoral to try to bring it about through violence.

    An islamic fundamentalist who has mental health problems, meanwhile, may believe that attacking people as they are coming out of Morrisons is a sure fire way to achieve that caliphate.

    And of course finally let's suppose I am not an islamic fundamentalist at all and have mental health problems. Perhaps I think it would be very interesting to see what happens if I throw a child off the balcony of the Tate Modern.

    It's not always an either/or.
    The point being with the establishment is they push the mental health aspect and try to ignore the ideology
    Yes I understand that it happens. And it is often a necessary but not sufficient factor. But by the same token, many seek to ignore the mental health elements completely as well.
    I am sure the Islamic fundamentalists are more than happy to exploit peoples mental health weaknesses.

    What we should be asking is who radicalises them and how.

    No curiosity on the part of our media at all.......
    But that would lead to asking about "clerics" in prisons, where they come from and who funds them.

    All BadThink questions.
    Not just in prisons.

    No one is disputing we have an issue with radicalisation in the UK and yes prisons and elsewhere can be problematic (Belmarsh, it was described to me some time ago, was in essence just a madrassa).

    But there is no quick fire solution. You can't lock up an ideology. You have to fight a culture war. And win.
    There is a quick fire solution. These prisons should be in sub-Saharan Africa, and run very differently from prisons in the UK. Sentences could be longer too. If people knew they were being sent to Mogadishu for a 40 years of penal servitude, they might just think it isn't worth it.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    nichomar said:

    If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000

    I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.

    He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible

    As for long haul not a chance

    Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
    I would imagine that, as with the trains, young children are exempt from mask wearing on aircraft, but I take your general point.

    Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway; perhaps, in future, a lot more people will decide that ten days of flopping about by a pool in Spain isn't worth the hassle involved in getting there and back?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yokes said:

    I posted on here over a month ago that Trump was finished and that Biden would have to kill a child for Trump to have a chance.

    It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.

    The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.

    What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.

    Until Biden gets well over 50% it is clear that just as in 2016 there are still a lot of silent Trump voters
    Is that true?

    Let's use the RCP poll of polls...

    In 2016, Clinton 2.7% more than her final voting average, while Trump got 3.9% more.

    So, there may have been some shy Trump supporters, but they just narrowed the gap by 1.2%.

    The other important thing to remember is that most of the people who say "I'm not sure" won't actually vote. That's why both Clinton and Trump rose.
    Biden's poll average today is 49.7%, that is just 1.7% higher than Hillary got in 2016.

    There has been no big swing from Trump to Biden, more from Trump to don't know or won't say

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911
    edited June 2020

    The polls thus remain unchanged

    Don't worry, the Conservatives will quite likely uptick as lockdown eases.

    People are demob happy and partying like it is 1945. A second spike will come sooner rather than later ( we have already been told to expect it) because people can't control themselves. When that happens, those partying on Bournemouth beach won't blame themselves, they will blame the people who told them it was safe so to do. That will reflect in opinion polls.
    You may well turn out to be right about the dreaded second wave, but if it comes I'm not so sure it'll have much to do with the beaches.

    The panic about overcrowded sunbathers goes all the way back to the London parks in April; however, since the peak in the first half of that month, deaths and hospitalisations have been on a continuous downward trend.
    The beaches is something of a red herring, however it does illustrate people really couldn't give a toss about the ramifications of spreading Covid-19 at the moment. Presumably until it happens to them or their loved ones.
    Hard to say. It rather depends how that segment of the population willing to go out in the first place breaks down between those who don't care about the disease (whether through ignorance or wilfully on purpose) and those who do but are weighing up the risk of their actions in a considered fashion.

    Outdoor activities are low risk, especially if you're lolling about on a beach or in a park and not interacting socially with other family groups. You're probably not going to be touching contaminated hard surfaces and the whole environment is being constantly saturated with UV radiation. If a carrier of the disease gets anywhere near you then you're nevertheless unlikely to catch it from them unless they cough in your face, and prevalence of the illness amongst the general population is relatively low in any event.

    I would imagine that quite a lot of people who have managed to acquire some knowledge of this virus would be a lot happier going to the beach than the supermarket, for example.

    Beyond that, if you're young (and especially if you're not living with a vulnerable person) then you might take the view that you're so unlikely to suffer serious consequences if you catch the wretched thing that you might as well go out and enjoy yourself. Regardless of whether you regard this as to any degree selfish or not, it's certainly understandable.
    It is understandable and I don't disagree with much of what you have said unless infections start to rise steeply again.

    However the downside is that the more the younger end of the spectrum don't appear to give a sh1t whether they get the virus or not the more the older end will simply stay at home. For better or worse much of the nation's disposable income resides in the latter category.

    I was talking to a restaurant owning friend of mine recently and his big worry was that the indications were that the older clientele won't return any time soon. Without them they are no where near viable. That is born out from anecdotes from friends who are, in the main over 50, fit and fairly comfortably off. I have friends who are objectively not in the least bit vulnerable but haven't been inside a shop for 3 months. Most are now contemplating going to like minded friends for dinner but won't be contemplating a restaurant this year.

    Scenes like those in Bournemouth just reinforce their views. The attitude of the oldies may not be rational but a lot of businesses are going to struggle if it doesn't change.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
    No. I think its understated.

    She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:

    image
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
    He is a militant libertarian
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
    He is a militant libertarian
    Hot weather probably not helping either.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Any gatherings of more than 6 people are illegal. Which means all protests are illegal.
    Under the law the Human Rights Act trumps all other laws including the COVID19 regulations and the Police and Government have rightly decided not to try this out in the courts and are allowing lawful demonstrations to proceed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
    No. I think its understated.

    She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:

    image
    She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911

    If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.

    Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.

    Its outrageous.

    The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
    It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?

    We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.

    You rarely get hospitalised with flu or sunburn. Have a read of the Miami Herald for an indication of how your attitude is working out in practice.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Alistair said:

    LadyG said:

    It is quite shocking to discover that the State of Mississippi STILL has the Confederate emblem in its official flag (though maybe not for much longer)

    https://twitter.com/lindsaywise/status/1276572924250636289?s=20

    America really is a different country

    The wacky thing is the flag was adopted in 1894, 29 years after the traitorous Confederacy was defeated.

    It's yet another piece of evidence that the whole "heritage" and history defence is a load of bullshit.
    Which is about the time most of those statues went up.....it had nothing to fo with "heritage" and everything to do with reminding African Americans who was still in charge.

    I do hope President Biden declares the KKK a terrorist organisation - if it isn't, what is?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited June 2020

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Any gatherings of more than 6 people are illegal. Which means all protests are illegal.
    Under the law the Human Rights Act trumps all other laws including the COVID19 regulations and the Police and Government have rightly decided not to try this out in the courts and are allowing lawful demonstrations to proceed.
    Except they aren't lawful demonstrations. ECHR includes appropriate exemptions on the right to assembly.
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
    No. I think its understated.

    She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:

    image
    Well I have to ask...what is wrong with clamping down on illegal immigration?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
    No. I think its understated.

    She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:

    image
    She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
    If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.

    That style of conservativism could perhaps be described as being a "nasty party" and is electorally toxic.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    nichomar said:

    If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000

    I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.

    He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible

    As for long haul not a chance

    Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
    Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
    "For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    RobD said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Any gatherings of more than 6 people are illegal. Which means all protests are illegal.
    Under the law the Human Rights Act trumps all other laws including the COVID19 regulations and the Police and Government have rightly decided not to try this out in the courts and are allowing lawful demonstrations to proceed.
    Except they aren't lawful demonstrations. ECHR includes appropriate exemptions on the right to assembly.
    If the BLM have informed the Police of their protest under the relevant legislation (as they seem to have since the Police are Tweeting about it in advance) then why isn't it lawful?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    FF43 said:

    Konsequenz is a very German concept. I am a spiritual German, despite not having any ties to the country.




    Hopefully medical science will be able to help one day.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2020

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
    No. I think its understated.

    She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:

    image
    She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
    If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.

    That style of conservativism could perhaps be described as being a "nasty party" and is electorally toxic.
    So you would say to migrants here illegally, 'roll out the red carpet and welcome!'

    It was concerns over uncontrolled immigration which helped deliver Brexit and saw the Red Wall fall to the Tories, not a diet of libertarianism
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Any gatherings of more than 6 people are illegal. Which means all protests are illegal.
    Under the law the Human Rights Act trumps all other laws including the COVID19 regulations and the Police and Government have rightly decided not to try this out in the courts and are allowing lawful demonstrations to proceed.
    Except they aren't lawful demonstrations. ECHR includes appropriate exemptions on the right to assembly.
    If the BLM have informed the Police of their protest under the relevant legislation (as they seem to have since the Police are Tweeting about it in advance) then why isn't it lawful?
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/558/pdfs/uksi_20200558_en.pdf

    “7.—(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (2) applies, no person may
    participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place—
    (a) outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, or
    (b) indoors, and consists of two or more persons.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    LadyG said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
    We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next

    This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711803597615111?s=20

    That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    This will get Facebook to move:

    Eyes are on the world's top advertiser, Procter & Gamble (PG -1.3%), which says it's undertaking a broad review of media channels to ensure its commercials don't appear near content deemed offensive.

    An update on that initiative today follows Unilever pulling its 2020 ad spending from Facebook (FB -7.1%) and Twitter (TWTR -7.6%) - and P&G making a similar move would land like a bombshell on digital ad budgets.


    https://seekingalpha.com/news/3586615-p-and-g-review-be-new-bombshell-for-digital-ad-companies
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    RobD said:

    Survation confirms polls remain basically unchanged

    A new poll? You could share it...
    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1276558018684076037?s=09
    "Basically unchanged" from a Labour ramper means back 1.01 an improved Conservative lead
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    edited June 2020

    LadyG said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
    We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next

    This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711803597615111?s=20

    That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
    The original thread isn't. (I can't say about the replies because they could be from anyone).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Any gatherings of more than 6 people are illegal. Which means all protests are illegal.
    Under the law the Human Rights Act trumps all other laws including the COVID19 regulations and the Police and Government have rightly decided not to try this out in the courts and are allowing lawful demonstrations to proceed.
    Except they aren't lawful demonstrations. ECHR includes appropriate exemptions on the right to assembly.
    If the BLM have informed the Police of their protest under the relevant legislation (as they seem to have since the Police are Tweeting about it in advance) then why isn't it lawful?
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/558/pdfs/uksi_20200558_en.pdf

    “7.—(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (2) applies, no person may
    participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place—
    (a) outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, or
    (b) indoors, and consists of two or more persons.
    Paragraph (2)

    (e) the person concerned is fulfilling a legal obligation or participating in legal proceedings;


    Would a legally authorised protest not count as a legal proceeding? Or does that mean courts etc
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Floater said:
    He really hasn't has he.

    I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
    I think he's doing a good job :)
    He needs a huge drop in membership to convince a few million Tory voters that he has changed the party. He has a very long road, but a decent start.

    Starmer's great challenge is going to be getting his lost Red Wall voters back without alienating Labour's existing core of young voters, metro left-libs, socialists and ethnic minorities. The more concessions he offers to the social conservative vote on, for example, immigration policy, policing and identity issues, the more he risks the core voters drifting off to the Greens, SNP/PC, minor Left parties and possibly the Lib Dems, or sitting on their hands.

    The possible alternative - making a big play for wealthier social liberals in Southern England - is also deeply problematic. Many of them will need convincing of Labour's economic competence, some at least won't want to be pumped for extra taxes, and there are actually rather few Southern seats available to Labour on modest swings. Out of the top 50 Labour targets arranged by swing required to capture, only a dozen are down South:

    Kensington (2), Chipping Barnet (10), Chingford & Woodford Green (13), Peterborough (27), Stroud (29), Hastings & Rye (37), Watford (41), Hendon (42), Wycombe (43), Truro & Falmouth (44), Reading West (46), Southampton Itchen (50)

    There are only about another dozen Southern seats in the list from targets 51-100, so the Tories could afford to ship the lot and still get home with a decent majority, and these more distant targets require swings of 5% or more to capture. And then there's the matter of simultaneously trying to defend what's left of the Red Wall, where there are a fair number of surviving Labour MPs in the North and the West Midlands sitting on small majorities themselves.

    So, we're back to how he appeals to enough of Labour's lost former core vote to get back into the game without losing his current supporters. This will not be easy.
    Today's Survation sees a swing of 2.5% from Tory to Labour since 2019, enough to see Red Wall seats like Blyth Valley, Durham NW, Bury N and S and Bridgend and West Bromwich East go back to Labour, though the Tories would still win with a narrower majority

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
    I have no idea how uniform swing (or lack of) would play out but Labour would struggle to get more than 230-240 seats on today's polls I reckon. I'd only be be confident of Labour regaining seats like High Peak, Kensington, Keighley, Dewsbury, Bury N&S, Warrington S Keighley, Gedling, Bolton NE etc and a small no.of seats with a large LD vote to squeeze like Southport and possibly Watford.
    Labour would get 227 seats on UNS on today's Survation

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
    I'd expect the swings from 2019 to continue in most seats at the next election. So the Tories will struggle to hold the likes of Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Chingford, etc, but the Red Wall seats will mostly stay Tory.
    Starmer's strategy to win back the Red Wall seats is hardly going to bear fruit yet; he has been leader less than three months. It will take nearer to three years; plenty of time.

    But the strategy will become clear. Brexit (and therefore immigration, probably) will be less of an issue or none at all. If immigration is still an issue, it will be because European immigrants have been replaced by those from farther afield. Starmer will have space to win back Red Wall seats by detoxifying the "anti-British" culture surrounding Corbyn in particular and Labour in general - this was more damaging than anything else. He's already shown that he will demonstrate that he is "proud to be English/British",without resorting to gung ho nationalism. Despite the claims of many on here, he will steer Labour away from culture wars.

    And then he will offer an economic and policy package that will appeal to northerners outside of the big cities (he already has the votes of most of those inside those).

    I reckon too many on here have bought into the stereotype of the pro-Brexit, anti-immigration white northern working class bloke (yes, it's usually blokes) who can't stand the metropolitan elite and has become a lifelong Tory. I know things are changing, but it's not that long ago that most of these folk voted for Blair, that well-known metropolitan liberal. While the right-wing white w/c group certainly exists and has got stronger, it's not a majority. Most of us northerners are just really decent people and many of us want a much fairer, more just society in which we can take pride in, and be paid well for, our work. By 2024, Labour is more likely to offer this than the Conservatives.

    The battle for hearts and minds has barely started.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
    No. I think its understated.

    She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:

    image
    She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
    If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.
    What should we say to illegal immigrants?

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Any gatherings of more than 6 people are illegal. Which means all protests are illegal.
    Under the law the Human Rights Act trumps all other laws including the COVID19 regulations and the Police and Government have rightly decided not to try this out in the courts and are allowing lawful demonstrations to proceed.
    Except they aren't lawful demonstrations. ECHR includes appropriate exemptions on the right to assembly.
    If the BLM have informed the Police of their protest under the relevant legislation (as they seem to have since the Police are Tweeting about it in advance) then why isn't it lawful?
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/558/pdfs/uksi_20200558_en.pdf

    “7.—(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (2) applies, no person may
    participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place—
    (a) outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, or
    (b) indoors, and consists of two or more persons.
    Paragraph (2)

    (e) the person concerned is fulfilling a legal obligation or participating in legal proceedings;


    Would a legally authorised protest not count as a legal proceeding? Or does that mean courts etc
    Not unless they were ordered there by a judge.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Any gatherings of more than 6 people are illegal. Which means all protests are illegal.
    Under the law the Human Rights Act trumps all other laws including the COVID19 regulations and the Police and Government have rightly decided not to try this out in the courts and are allowing lawful demonstrations to proceed.
    Except they aren't lawful demonstrations. ECHR includes appropriate exemptions on the right to assembly.
    If the BLM have informed the Police of their protest under the relevant legislation (as they seem to have since the Police are Tweeting about it in advance) then why isn't it lawful?
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/558/pdfs/uksi_20200558_en.pdf

    “7.—(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (2) applies, no person may
    participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place—
    (a) outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, or
    (b) indoors, and consists of two or more persons.
    Paragraph (2)

    (e) the person concerned is fulfilling a legal obligation or participating in legal proceedings;


    Would a legally authorised protest not count as a legal proceeding? Or does that mean courts etc
    'Legal proceedings' in this case is a reference to something involving the courts/justice system in some way.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    Andy_JS said:
    LOL!

    Still meaningless like the others but curious how the thread header on this one will discuss it.
    There wont be one!
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    OllyT said:

    Hard to say. It rather depends how that segment of the population willing to go out in the first place breaks down between those who don't care about the disease (whether through ignorance or wilfully on purpose) and those who do but are weighing up the risk of their actions in a considered fashion.

    Outdoor activities are low risk, especially if you're lolling about on a beach or in a park and not interacting socially with other family groups. You're probably not going to be touching contaminated hard surfaces and the whole environment is being constantly saturated with UV radiation. If a carrier of the disease gets anywhere near you then you're nevertheless unlikely to catch it from them unless they cough in your face, and prevalence of the illness amongst the general population is relatively low in any event.

    I would imagine that quite a lot of people who have managed to acquire some knowledge of this virus would be a lot happier going to the beach than the supermarket, for example.

    Beyond that, if you're young (and especially if you're not living with a vulnerable person) then you might take the view that you're so unlikely to suffer serious consequences if you catch the wretched thing that you might as well go out and enjoy yourself. Regardless of whether you regard this as to any degree selfish or not, it's certainly understandable.

    It is understandable and I don't disagree with much of what you have said unless infections start to rise steeply again.

    However the downside is that the more the younger end of the spectrum don't appear to give a sh1t whether they get the virus or not the more the older end will simply stay at home. For better or worse much of the nation's disposable income resides in the latter category.

    I was talking to a restaurant owning friend of mine recently and his big worry was that the indications were that the older clientele won't return any time soon. Without them they are no where near viable. That is born out from anecdotes from friends who are, in the main over 50, fit and fairly comfortably off. I have friends who are objectively not in the least bit vulnerable but haven't been inside a shop for 3 months. Most are now contemplating going to like minded friends for dinner but won't be contemplating a restaurant this year.

    Scenes like those in Bournemouth just reinforce their views. The attitude of the oldies may not be rational but a lot of businesses are going to struggle if it doesn't change.
    That's fair up to a point, but I'm not sure that pictures from crowded beaches are going to make much difference to the judgments of the more cautious/anxious sections of the population. As with the young people I mentioned, so with them: they're going to make decisions based on their knowledge of the virus, what they perceive the risks of various kinds of behaviour to be, and how much risk they are prepared to tolerate - irrespective of whether or not groups of twentysomethings are lounging about in the Sun with beers.

    But yes, some businesses have already succumbed and I'm sure there will be many more casualties: unshuttering certainly won't save all of our leisure and hospitality concerns in the medium term, any more than it will retail. I've been consistent in my opinion on this matter for some time: the number of businesses in these sectors is going to shrink until the remaining selection of outlets matches the size and preferences of the clientele willing to patronise them. Concerned oldies might feel sufficiently safe and sufficiently motivated to sustain a lot of garden centres, for example, but if you're a clothing retailer that's particularly geared towards the more mature market then I think you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Andy_JS said:

    LadyG said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
    We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next

    This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711803597615111?s=20

    That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
    The original thread isn't. (I can't say about the replies because they could be from anyone).
    It is.

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711813030596619

    I think "sensible aversion to supporting thuggish far right groups" is still there. People are not in a "war for their survival" and "extreme measures" are not justified.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Any gatherings of more than 6 people are illegal. Which means all protests are illegal.
    Under the law the Human Rights Act trumps all other laws including the COVID19 regulations and the Police and Government have rightly decided not to try this out in the courts and are allowing lawful demonstrations to proceed.
    Except they aren't lawful demonstrations. ECHR includes appropriate exemptions on the right to assembly.
    If the BLM have informed the Police of their protest under the relevant legislation (as they seem to have since the Police are Tweeting about it in advance) then why isn't it lawful?
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/558/pdfs/uksi_20200558_en.pdf

    “7.—(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (2) applies, no person may
    participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place—
    (a) outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, or
    (b) indoors, and consists of two or more persons.
    Paragraph (2)

    (e) the person concerned is fulfilling a legal obligation or participating in legal proceedings;


    Would a legally authorised protest not count as a legal proceeding? Or does that mean courts etc
    'Legal proceedings' in this case is a reference to something involving the courts/justice system in some way.
    OK thanks.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited June 2020
    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited June 2020
    He is Ed Miliband after a weekend on the gear

    Give that man a pack of Tunes!
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911
    nichomar said:

    If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000

    Spain will probably be able to refloat its economy on the back of fines from stupid Brits this summer.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
    We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next

    This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711803597615111?s=20

    That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
    You seem triggered
    Yes SeanT/Bryonic/eadric LadyG, I get irritated by your race-baiting bullshit and I'm not embarrassed to acknowledge that or call it out.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited June 2020
    BBC News - Coronavirus: PM warns over virus rules after beach crowds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53190209

    Funny how the media are pushing the crowded beach will spread covid narrative, but BLM protests, nah, no, definitely no issue, move along.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    BBC News - Coronavirus: PM warns over virus rules after beach crowds
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53190209

    Funny how the media are pushing the beach will spread covid narrative, but BLM, nah, no, definitely no issue.

    They are even further apart than the protesters.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
    We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next

    This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711803597615111?s=20

    That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
    You seem triggered
    Preferable to being Roy Rogered.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.

    Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.

    Its outrageous.

    Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.

    The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.

    Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.

    But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.

    Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.

    Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.

    I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.

    It seems to me that the places that have done best are either

    (a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)

    or

    (b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.

    I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
    NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
    The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
    Fortunately it is off season in Late Autumn, but the ski resorts will be quiet in a few months. Possibly by the Christmas/summer season things will have picked up.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
    We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next

    This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711803597615111?s=20

    That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
    You seem triggered
    Yes SeanT/Bryonic/eadric LadyG, I get irritated by your race-baiting bullshit and I'm not embarrassed to acknowledge that or call it out.
    Please ask the mods to check my IP
    Why bother. Masking your IP is piss easy.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    the law must be applied equally with not preference - that is what has gone over the past month. I just hope we get it back
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
    That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    Andy_JS said:
    Starmer playing a blinder once again :smile:

    Maybe the Great British Public aren't as keen on kneeling as they've been told they have to be?
    Starmer’s ratings, at least in the Redfield and Wilton poll, have not dropped, Johnson’s have risen, meaning it is likely something Johnson did. I think the popular lockdown announcement has caused this boost.

    Clearly the right consider this culture war stuff a winner, which is fine, elections are there to be won. Concentrate on your strengths. But we don’t have an election for another 4 years. As you delight in repetitively reminding us, you won the last one. In the meantime it would perhaps be a sign of a responsible party, interested more in governing properly than winning an election nearly half a decade away, to focus more on this bastard of a virus that has been floating around these last four months than transient damage (even Coulson was fished out and repaired) to a few statues and sundry symbolic but, in the current context, ultimately trivial gestures.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    OllyT said:

    nichomar said:

    If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000

    Spain will probably be able to refloat its economy on the back of fines from stupid Brits this summer.
    As long as they don’t end up in hospital. EHIC cards only valid till December 31st so don’t forget your medical cover next year.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
    That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
    Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
    That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
    Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
    I'm not sure how that changes my central argument, that it's an illegal activity. No amount of permission slips changes that basic fact.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    LadyG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    LadyG said:

    RobD said:

    LadyG said:
    It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
    Are you sure?

    There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.

    If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
    Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
    We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next

    This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711803597615111?s=20

    That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
    The original thread isn't. (I can't say about the replies because they could be from anyone).
    It is.

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711813030596619

    I think "sensible aversion to supporting thuggish far right groups" is still there. People are not in a "war for their survival" and "extreme measures" are not justified.
    It's a PREDICTION. He made this part of his prediction on June 10th:

    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711805195649025?s=20

    By June 13th, 3 days alter, EDL types were assembling in Parliament Sq, exactly as he foreseaw.

    He also predicted this:



    https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1270711808312016897?s=20

    And what happened? The guy who urinated next to the policeman's memorial got jail, for a misplaced leak, the BLM rioters who beat up white people have so far got nothing.


    Given that this is a site dedicated to political forecasting, it it surely rash to dismiss someone who, so far, seems right on the forecasting button.
    Predicting that racist prats would react to black protestors by acting like racist prats is not something sage. Anyone could predict that.

    You were eadric was the one sharing lies about BLM rioters hunting down beating white protestors to death and stabbing white protestors and the Police said that never happened. Funny that you want to share the same conspiracy theory bollocks too.

    What next you were there and saw them and the lizard people are behind it?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    A well marshalled, socially distanced permitted demonstration is probably much better than an angry confrontation with the police on a hot summers day and temperatures flaring. Better than a riot in short.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    LadyG said:

    OllyT said:

    Hard to say. It rather depends how that segment of the population willing to go out in the first place breaks down between those who don't care about the disease (whether through ignorance or wilfully on purpose) and those who do but are weighing up the risk of their actions in a considered fashion.

    Outdoor activities are low risk, especially if you're lolling about on a beach or in a park and not interacting socially with other family groups. You're probably not going to be touching contaminated hard surfaces and the whole environment is being constantly saturated with UV radiation. If a carrier of the disease gets anywhere near you then you're nevertheless unlikely to catch it from them unless they cough in your face, and prevalence of the illness amongst the general population is relatively low in any event.

    I would imagine that quite a lot of people who have managed to acquire some knowledge of this virus would be a lot happier going to the beach than the supermarket, for example.

    Beyond that, if you're young (and especially if you're not living with a vulnerable person) then you might take the view that you're so unlikely to suffer serious consequences if you catch the wretched thing that you might as well go out and enjoy yourself. Regardless of whether you regard this as to any degree selfish or not, it's certainly understandable.

    It is understandable and I don't disagree with much of what you have said unless infections start to rise steeply again.

    However the downside is that the more the younger end of the spectrum don't appear to give a sh1t whether they get the virus or not the more the older end will simply stay at home. For better or worse much of the nation's disposable income resides in the latter category.

    I was talking to a restaurant owning friend of mine recently and his big worry was that the indications were that the older clientele won't return any time soon. Without them they are no where near viable. That is born out from anecdotes from friends who are, in the main over 50, fit and fairly comfortably off. I have friends who are objectively not in the least bit vulnerable but haven't been inside a shop for 3 months. Most are now contemplating going to like minded friends for dinner but won't be contemplating a restaurant this year.

    Scenes like those in Bournemouth just reinforce their views. The attitude of the oldies may not be rational but a lot of businesses are going to struggle if it doesn't change.
    That's fair up to a point, but I'm not sure that pictures from crowded beaches are going to make much difference to the judgments of the more cautious/anxious sections of the population. As with the young people I mentioned, so with them: they're going to make decisions based on their knowledge of the virus, what they perceive the risks of various kinds of behaviour to be, and how much risk they are prepared to tolerate - irrespective of whether or not groups of twentysomethings are lounging about in the Sun with beers.

    But yes, some businesses have already succumbed and I'm sure there will be many more casualties: unshuttering certainly won't save all of our leisure and hospitality concerns in the medium term, any more than it will retail. I've been consistent in my opinion on this matter for some time: the number of businesses in these sectors is going to shrink until the remaining selection of outlets matches the size and preferences of the clientele willing to patronise them. Concerned oldies might feel sufficiently safe and sufficiently motivated to sustain a lot of garden centres, for example, but if you're a clothing retailer that's particularly geared towards the more mature market then I think you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
    Theatres, restaurants, and art galleries are completely fucked. I despair what our town centres will look and feel like in a couple of years. It will be like the 1970s again.

    Except this will be repeated around the world, not just in the UK.
    I think people will have to eat outside more or get takeaways and theatres and galleries do more online shows
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.

    Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.

    Its outrageous.

    Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.

    The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.

    Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.

    But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.

    Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.

    Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.

    I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.

    It seems to me that the places that have done best are either

    (a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)

    or

    (b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.

    I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
    NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
    The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
    Scarily, it's actually even higher than that. See: https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Tourism/Travel-and-Tourism-Total-Contribution-to-GDP/Contribution-of-travel-and-tourism-to-GDP-percent-of-GDP
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
    That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
    Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
    The Police do not have the legal power to grant permission for a protest at the current time - that is the point. Gatherings of more than 6 people are not legal
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
    That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
    Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
    The Police do not have the legal power to grant permission for a protest at the current time - that is the point. Gatherings of more than 6 people are not legal
    But it's okay if you are in this specific group, but not the other. Naturally!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
    That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
    Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
    I'm not sure how that changes my central argument, that it's an illegal activity. No amount of permission slips changes that basic fact.
    Again Human Rights Act trumps COVID regulations and in this instance so it should.

    The HRA is meaningless if the Government can make protests unlawful. If an authoritarian government came to power and introduced "emergency" legislation that confined people at home and people want to protest against that emergency legislation should that be illegal?

    If so that is an awful power to grant to a government. Under no circumstances should the right of free assembly be stopped by "emergency" regulations.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    I guess the test would be if another group applied for permission to gather and it was denied on the grounds of social distancing etc.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited June 2020

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
    That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
    Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
    I'm not sure how that changes my central argument, that it's an illegal activity. No amount of permission slips changes that basic fact.
    Again Human Rights Act trumps COVID regulations and in this instance so it should.

    The HRA is meaningless if the Government can make protests unlawful. If an authoritarian government came to power and introduced "emergency" legislation that confined people at home and people want to protest against that emergency legislation should that be illegal?

    If so that is an awful power to grant to a government. Under no circumstances should the right of free assembly be stopped by "emergency" regulations.
    Good lord. Which part of the HRA? The ECHR contains exemptions for public health which are undoubtedly appropriate here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_11_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    kle4 said:

    Really?

    Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!

    You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
    In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high

    Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
    Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.

    The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
    Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?

    Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
    Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
    Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
    I think she was scarred for life by watching Teresa May videos...
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    Foxy said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    A well marshalled, socially distanced permitted demonstration is probably much better than an angry confrontation with the police on a hot summers day and temperatures flaring. Better than a riot in short.
    I agree that avoiding a riot situation is a valid consideration. But the Police do not have the legal authority to override the restriction on gatherings of more than 6 people.

    That is what is concerning - one particular grouping is being given special treatment by the Police. That is wrong.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    LadyG said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?

    We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
    Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
    The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
    That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
    Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
    I'm not sure how that changes my central argument, that it's an illegal activity. No amount of permission slips changes that basic fact.
    The police also say that they are expressly "facilitating" this BLM vigil. That seems to go beyond a permissive stance, into actual encouragement
    Could the police be sued?
This discussion has been closed.