Not often I get to agree with Michael Vaughan, but I agree this is the biggest load of codswallop I’ve ever heard. The Govt seems to be going out of its way, for god knows what reasons, to find excuses to prevent some activity from restarting whilst allowing others of incredibly greater scales of risk.
Beyond possibly the prevention of large scale gatherings (although even that’s undermined by the allowing of all the mass protests of recent weeks) the basic presumption should be that all activity should be allowed to resume as long as reasonable mitigation measures are taken to remove potential (and avoidable) areas of risk.
Just because “leisure activities” such as cricket aren’t as obviously necessary for the successful functioning of the country and economy, doesn’t mean they should just be dismissed in attempts to restart.
There is a theory that it's because May likes Cricket. Normally I'd say that was bollocks, but with Boris I can beleive it.
Not often I get to agree with Michael Vaughan, but I agree this is the biggest load of codswallop I’ve ever heard. The Govt seems to be going out of its way, for god knows what reasons, to find excuses to prevent some activity from restarting whilst allowing others of incredibly greater scales of risk.
Beyond possibly the prevention of large scale gatherings (although even that’s undermined by the allowing of all the mass protests of recent weeks) the basic presumption should be that all activity should be allowed to resume as long as reasonable mitigation measures are taken to remove potential (and avoidable) areas of risk.
Just because “leisure activities” such as cricket aren’t as obviously necessary for the successful functioning of the country and economy, doesn’t mean they should just be dismissed in attempts to restart.
Bowqlers and batspersons running fast and then panting away next to the umpire and wicketkeeper (the latter, I know, the other end from the bowler!).
Then the bowlers and fielders spitting on the ball, rubbing it a bit before throwing it to the next guy to do the same.
Maybe they should allow sandpaper for this season?
Informal arrangement with the publicans? Who will have a reduced seating capacity - so be glaf to have a turnover. And blaming the polis makes arguments less likely.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
WH2020 will not only be mega-betting event. Is also shaping up to be the most expensive political campaign in US history.
Trump 2020 is like France 1940. Both wanting to repeat their 11th-hour victories in previous conflict. BUT history does NOT repeat itself, at least not that way.
In 2016, Trumpsky was convinced he was going to lose. He was wrong.
In 2020, he thinks he can win by re-running his previous campaign. Wrong again.
As Andy JS points out his approval rating today is back to his 2016 voteshare
So do YOU think Trumpsky can win by simply repeating his 2016 campaign? Strange, but most Republican strategists do NOT appear to share that view.
9% of voters are still undecided with Yougov USA, if Trump wins most of those he wins the election
Pretty big IF. Plus methinks Trumpsky has yet to hit bottom polling-wise.
Currently Biden is 9.6% ahead in the 538 polling average. Trump would need a frankly unbelievable number of undecideds to vote for him to win if the election were tomorrow.
Why won't ScotGov immediately agree to the list of non quarantined countries we've given them? We need certainty, NOW!
Why won't ScotGov immediately agree to the revised list of non quarantined countries we've given them? We gave them 30mins to check it.
Why won't ScotGov immediately agree to the revised, revised list of non quarantined countries we've given them? Confused messaging is damaging confidence.
Weren't you saying external borders were Patel's domain a few days ago?
It is, hence the tension between HMG's confused & ever changing arse up of how they want to control the UK borders and ScotGov's Covid policy.
So they have to lump it regardless?
It's one of the interesting unresolved questions of devolution, does (devolved) public health policy trump (non devolved) border control policy, or vice versa?
Of course with the Holyrood voting system it was always envisaged that Labour would be either on top in both countries (so deferring to London for the final decision) or in charge in Scotland (in which case who cared what the Tories in London thought?). Yet another consequence of the Blairite devolution settlement leaving the English question unresolved.
Well it was supposed to kill nationalism stone dead. How'd that work out?
Very well from my pov.
The UK still together over 2 decades later
And nationalism of various hues is rampant across the UK. The British variety is looking a wee bit peely wally in Scotland mind.
The only nationalism which has actually won is Brexit nationalism in 2016 and 2019, Scottish nationalism was defeated in 2014, Welsh nationalism is still nowhere and the DUP are still the largest party in Northern Ireland
So Brexit nationalism won the 2019 GE? Can you tell me which kind of nationalism won general elections, both UK and Scottish, in Scotland since 2014?
There was a comment on the previous thread asking why state schools were not providing online teaching. I couldn’t reply at the time as I was providing some online teaching. Different schools will have done different amounts, but the school I teach at has been running lessons as normal, just online. Some (though by no means all) have been live teaching, I have been pre-recording videos with a mixture of notes and example questions. We have been using Microsoft Teams to allow pupils to submit work and sending them feedback on it via the same route.
Most pupils have engaged well, but it does rely on a decent internet connection to work, which has been a problem for some.
The hardest thing for me as a teacher of Physics is that it is very difficult to do practical work. I have also had to resist the temptation to just find a YouTube video that does roughly what I want, (although I have done for a couple of things where they just had a bigger budget: it is difficult to do justice to the life cycle of a star with the digital equivalent of a white board).
The point I am trying to make is that it is not just the independent sector which has been providing significant support for its pupils over the last few months.
Good to hear, it must be temping to have given the kids a diet of Mythbusters.
The earlier discussion was more about the technology, and how how many state school pupils don’t have enough computing devices at home to allow them to participate in the online lessons - whereas private schools had managed iPads or laptops for each pupil.
Surely it depends on where the state school is and the attitude of parents and students to education, I’m sure even in those homes with Netflix and the rest with adequate connections etc that without parental engagement and student motivation schooling did not happen as they went to the beach
Headline - 38 7 days - 21 - quite a lot of back dating Yesterday - 6
As ever last 3-5 days subject to revision - last 5 days included for completeness
Last 10 days -
I have this constant image now of someone wandering around our hospitals and care homes with a clip board opening various broom cupboards and the like only to have yet another bundle of dead bodies that have been stored out of the way whilst people were busy fall on him. I find it genuinely bizarre that we are so poor at reporting death. Don't we care?
Death certificates are not signed with a stamp. They are treated as serious documents by doctors - as they should be.
Autopsies are another issue. As if discovering deaths that didn't seem to be caused by COVID19 at the time.
Yes, but shouldn't doctors sign them when, you know, someone has died? And given that they are such serious documents is it too much to ask hospitals to keep a note of how many have been issued?
They don't.
And at least in Scotland it's the registrar who issues and signs them.
In a recent death in my family (the person was found dead overnight) it was the ambulance folk who confirmed death (pretty obvious) - no autopsy though in contrast to the previous occasion 10 years ago. I reported it so i f anyone signed anything it was me, metaphorically speaking. The registrar did check in person over the phone with the person's doctor for a likely cause.
When my mum died it was the registrar who issued the form but I remember I had to get some sort of certificate from the GP first, possibly confirming cause of death. But I am pretty sure that the hospice knew she was dead before I got the form.
But I am happy to accept @TheWhiteRabbit's explanation. It is dull enough to be true.
More generally - and this is talking of the last decade, not including covid - I believe that in Scotland atd least there has been a reduction in the proportion of formally unexplained deaths sent to autopsy - maybe in the UK as a whole but I cannot quite remember the details. So in my seciond case I was not too surprised when there was no autopsy. I wasn't worried about the death per se - there had been an incident shortly before and known illness. And it was nice not to have the additional hassle at such a time. But I have a sneaking regret that this basic health monitoring measure has been deployed less of late.
On the other hand, the fairly close tracking of excess deaths by the reported covid deaths by NRS (weekly data) suggests that it hasn't made for underreporting of covid deaths in Scotland, in apparent contrast to England.
Hmm... not quite sure what you mean by under-reporting.
In Scotland, the daily reported figures are only capturing about 60% of Covid deaths (as of 28 June there are 4,155 Covid-19 deaths reported by NRS when the Scottish Government had reported 2,482). As of 19th June there were 39,694 deaths reported in England and Wales by DHSC and the ONS had reported 49,610, which is closer to 80%.
Why won't ScotGov immediately agree to the list of non quarantined countries we've given them? We need certainty, NOW!
Why won't ScotGov immediately agree to the revised list of non quarantined countries we've given them? We gave them 30mins to check it.
Why won't ScotGov immediately agree to the revised, revised list of non quarantined countries we've given them? Confused messaging is damaging confidence.
Weren't you saying external borders were Patel's domain a few days ago?
It is, hence the tension between HMG's confused & ever changing arse up of how they want to control the UK borders and ScotGov's Covid policy.
So they have to lump it regardless?
It's one of the interesting unresolved questions of devolution, does (devolved) public health policy trump (non devolved) border control policy, or vice versa?
Of course with the Holyrood voting system it was always envisaged that Labour would be either on top in both countries (so deferring to London for the final decision) or in charge in Scotland (in which case who cared what the Tories in London thought?). Yet another consequence of the Blairite devolution settlement leaving the English question unresolved.
Well it was supposed to kill nationalism stone dead. How'd that work out?
Very well from my pov.
The UK still together over 2 decades later
And nationalism of various hues is rampant across the UK. The British variety is looking a wee bit peely wally in Scotland mind.
The only nationalism which has actually won is Brexit nationalism in 2016 and 2019, Scottish nationalism was defeated in 2014, Welsh nationalism is still nowhere and the DUP are still the largest party in Northern Ireland
So Brexit nationalism won the 2019 GE? Can you tell me which kind of nationalism won general elections, both UK and Scottish, in Scotland since 2014?
It lost the referendum in 2014 though, 2019 was just to deliver the 2016 referendum result
WH2020 will not only be mega-betting event. Is also shaping up to be the most expensive political campaign in US history.
Trump 2020 is like France 1940. Both wanting to repeat their 11th-hour victories in previous conflict. BUT history does NOT repeat itself, at least not that way.
In 2016, Trumpsky was convinced he was going to lose. He was wrong.
In 2020, he thinks he can win by re-running his previous campaign. Wrong again.
As Andy JS points out his approval rating today is back to his 2016 voteshare
So do YOU think Trumpsky can win by simply repeating his 2016 campaign? Strange, but most Republican strategists do NOT appear to share that view.
9% of voters are still undecided with Yougov USA, if Trump wins most of those he wins the election
Pretty big IF. Plus methinks Trumpsky has yet to hit bottom polling-wise.
Currently Biden is 9.6% ahead in the 538 polling average. Trump would need a frankly unbelievable number of undecideds to vote for him to win if the election were tomorrow.
Also his approval rating average is currently 40.7%, so 5.4% below his 2016 vote share.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
Starkey was over the line. His words were racist and any public organisations will have to think hard about involving him in anything now because black people will not be comfortable working with or under him.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
No.
But if I had a big interest in Henry VII - yes.
You're not going up against the whole PB community on this one, are you?
WH2020 will not only be mega-betting event. Is also shaping up to be the most expensive political campaign in US history.
Trump 2020 is like France 1940. Both wanting to repeat their 11th-hour victories in previous conflict. BUT history does NOT repeat itself, at least not that way.
In 2016, Trumpsky was convinced he was going to lose. He was wrong.
In 2020, he thinks he can win by re-running his previous campaign. Wrong again.
As Andy JS points out his approval rating today is back to his 2016 voteshare
So do YOU think Trumpsky can win by simply repeating his 2016 campaign? Strange, but most Republican strategists do NOT appear to share that view.
9% of voters are still undecided with Yougov USA, if Trump wins most of those he wins the election
Pretty big IF. Plus methinks Trumpsky has yet to hit bottom polling-wise.
Currently Biden is 9.6% ahead in the 538 polling average. Trump would need a frankly unbelievable number of undecideds to vote for him to win if the election were tomorrow.
Biden was 5% ahead with Yougov yesterday with 9% undecided
I wonder if they might be value for podium places...
Yes. Ferrari way off the pace too, I think it’s between Verstappen and Pérez for the third step on the podium, although places 3rd to 13th covered by less than half a second.
Not often I get to agree with Michael Vaughan, but I agree this is the biggest load of codswallop I’ve ever heard. The Govt seems to be going out of its way, for god knows what reasons, to find excuses to prevent some activity from restarting whilst allowing others of incredibly greater scales of risk.
Beyond possibly the prevention of large scale gatherings (although even that’s undermined by the allowing of all the mass protests of recent weeks) the basic presumption should be that all activity should be allowed to resume as long as reasonable mitigation measures are taken to remove potential (and avoidable) areas of risk.
Just because “leisure activities” such as cricket aren’t as obviously necessary for the successful functioning of the country and economy, doesn’t mean they should just be dismissed in attempts to restart.
Bowqlers and batspersons running fast and then panting away next to the umpire and wicketkeeper (the latter, I know, the other end from the bowler!).
Yeah, I can't imagine this being a vindictive decision against cricket, rather it is based on advice from the boffins about which sports are riskier than others.
But evidently a failure of explanation/presentation maybe.
From the government of the natural communicator that is Brand Boris? Surely not.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV commenting on current affairs.
If this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
I don't disagree with removing Starkey though, he's an obnoxious character anyway.
Starkey once popped into one of my local pubs one Sunday evening (he'd been giving a lecture nearby) - very polite and unassuming, nothing like the bumptious character of his TV appearances. It would be rather tragic if he got into all this trouble because he was playing up a performance act.
Exactly l, apart from the ill advised word 'damn' he did not say anything racist as such and remains one of the best Tudor historians of his age
so apart from saying something definitely racist, he only said something racist but not "as such" racist. sounds like a top bloke.
Probably none, as with the previous misuse of the police state law ... which seems legally dodgy because it's an extension of some dusty legislation from 1984.
Are cafes allowed to open yet .. in England? Logically, they ought to open before pubs, but one can never predict the next episode of this long-running farce 'Carry on Corona'.
WH2020 will not only be mega-betting event. Is also shaping up to be the most expensive political campaign in US history.
Trump 2020 is like France 1940. Both wanting to repeat their 11th-hour victories in previous conflict. BUT history does NOT repeat itself, at least not that way.
In 2016, Trumpsky was convinced he was going to lose. He was wrong.
In 2020, he thinks he can win by re-running his previous campaign. Wrong again.
As Andy JS points out his approval rating today is back to his 2016 voteshare
So do YOU think Trumpsky can win by simply repeating his 2016 campaign? Strange, but most Republican strategists do NOT appear to share that view.
9% of voters are still undecided with Yougov USA, if Trump wins most of those he wins the election
Pretty big IF. Plus methinks Trumpsky has yet to hit bottom polling-wise.
Currently Biden is 9.6% ahead in the 538 polling average. Trump would need a frankly unbelievable number of undecideds to vote for him to win if the election were tomorrow.
Biden was 5% ahead with Yougov yesterday with 9% undecided
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
No.
But if I had a big interest in Henry VII - yes.
You're not going up against the whole PB community on this one, are you?
There was a comment on the previous thread asking why state schools were not providing online teaching. I couldn’t reply at the time as I was providing some online teaching. Different schools will have done different amounts, but the school I teach at has been running lessons as normal, just online. Some (though by no means all) have been live teaching, I have been pre-recording videos with a mixture of notes and example questions. We have been using Microsoft Teams to allow pupils to submit work and sending them feedback on it via the same route.
Most pupils have engaged well, but it does rely on a decent internet connection to work, which has been a problem for some.
The hardest thing for me as a teacher of Physics is that it is very difficult to do practical work. I have also had to resist the temptation to just find a YouTube video that does roughly what I want, (although I have done for a couple of things where they just had a bigger budget: it is difficult to do justice to the life cycle of a star with the digital equivalent of a white board).
The point I am trying to make is that it is not just the independent sector which has been providing significant support for its pupils over the last few months.
Good to hear, it must be temping to have given the kids a diet of Mythbusters.
The earlier discussion was more about the technology, and how how many state school pupils don’t have enough computing devices at home to allow them to participate in the online lessons - whereas private schools had managed iPads or laptops for each pupil.
For several years now we have been using iPads in school, subsidising those who could not afford them with funds from the Pupil Premium (which can be tricky to spend otherwise).
Headline - 38 7 days - 21 - quite a lot of back dating Yesterday - 6
As ever last 3-5 days subject to revision - last 5 days included for completeness
Last 10 days -
I have this constant image now of someone wandering around our hospitals and care homes with a clip board opening various broom cupboards and the like only to have yet another bundle of dead bodies that have been stored out of the way whilst people were busy fall on him. I find it genuinely bizarre that we are so poor at reporting death. Don't we care?
Death certificates are not signed with a stamp. They are treated as serious documents by doctors - as they should be.
Autopsies are another issue. As if discovering deaths that didn't seem to be caused by COVID19 at the time.
Yes, but shouldn't doctors sign them when, you know, someone has died? And given that they are such serious documents is it too much to ask hospitals to keep a note of how many have been issued?
They don't.
And at least in Scotland it's the registrar who issues and signs them.
In a recent death in my family (the person was found dead overnight) it was the ambulance folk who confirmed death (pretty obvious) - no autopsy though in contrast to the previous occasion 10 years ago. I reported it so i f anyone signed anything it was me, metaphorically speaking. The registrar did check in person over the phone with the person's doctor for a likely cause.
When my mum died it was the registrar who issued the form but I remember I had to get some sort of certificate from the GP first, possibly confirming cause of death. But I am pretty sure that the hospice knew she was dead before I got the form.
But I am happy to accept @TheWhiteRabbit's explanation. It is dull enough to be true.
More generally - and this is talking of the last decade, not including covid - I believe that in Scotland atd least there has been a reduction in the proportion of formally unexplained deaths sent to autopsy - maybe in the UK as a whole but I cannot quite remember the details. So in my seciond case I was not too surprised when there was no autopsy. I wasn't worried about the death per se - there had been an incident shortly before and known illness. And it was nice not to have the additional hassle at such a time. But I have a sneaking regret that this basic health monitoring measure has been deployed less of late.
On the other hand, the fairly close tracking of excess deaths by the reported covid deaths by NRS (weekly data) suggests that it hasn't made for underreporting of covid deaths in Scotland, in apparent contrast to England.
Hmm... not quite sure what you mean by under-reporting.
In Scotland, the daily reported figures are only capturing about 60% of Covid deaths (as of 28 June there are 4,155 Covid-19 deaths reported by NRS when the Scottish Government had reported 2,482). As of 19th June there were 39,694 deaths reported in England and Wales by DHSC and the ONS had reported 49,610, which is closer to 80%.
It may be that these SG figures don't include data from UK gmt testing in Scotland which has been much delayed at times, I gather.
But I am in any case thinking of the weekly NRS data (NRS are of course a Scottish Gmt agency). The apparent underrreporting took place in April/May anyway, so was quite some time ago. Probabloy a procedural issue but we never found out what it was.
Sweden US Canada All of Central and South America Bermuda [but most Caribbean islands are included] All of Africa China Thailand Cambodia Laos Malaysia Singapore Israel Gulf States Iran Iraq Jordan
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
In any case, it was John Major who first channelled Superman. Or am I too influenced by Steve Bell's cartoons?
Edit: Idiot that I am. It was Harold Macmillan who was first.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.
So on the one hand we have a hero who makes the world a better place, but hides it behind a mild mannered persona and acting as a journalist . . . and on the other hand we have the Man of Steel.
Have you seen the consultation from OFQUAL on next year’s exams? They have suggested science for GCSE temporarily lose the practical element for this very reason.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
Yes, a Starmer led Government will see the biggest hammering of the rich since Callaghan and Healey were in power
Possibly since George Osborne's budgets, even.
Osborne cut the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45% and raised the inheritance tax threshold, both measures boosting the wealthy
He took away my personal allowance, my Child Benefit and substantially increased the proportion of my income on which I was paying 40% tax. He was right to do so of course, the country and public services needed the money. But it hurt.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
It was not CU but (IIRC) Fitzwilliam College which asked Dr S to resign.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
Will that produce as many vaccines as the EU ventilator scheme produced ventilators, or the EU PPE scheme produced masks and gloves.
Or it it simply that EU= good and UK=bad?
Who knows ? It’s a fact that there is much more production capacity in Europe than in the UK - and that will be a constraint in delivering a vaccine rapidly and in bulk.
Will that produce as many vaccines as the EU ventilator scheme produced ventilators, or the EU PPE scheme produced masks and gloves.
Or it it simply that EU= good and UK=bad?
Who knows ? It’s a fact that there is much more production capacity in Europe than in the UK - and that will be a constraint in delivering a vaccine rapidly and in bulk.
I think AstraZeneca says it can distribute two billion doses alone, and the UK has secured 100 million itself.
Shapps seems to have been violently against quarantining from the beginning and has once again got his way on this. We can only hope the consequential death toll is not too severe.
Will that produce as many vaccines as the EU ventilator scheme produced ventilators, or the EU PPE scheme produced masks and gloves.
Or it it simply that EU= good and UK=bad?
Who knows ? It’s a fact that there is much more production capacity in Europe than in the UK - and that will be a constraint in delivering a vaccine rapidly and in bulk.
Proportionately is there? There may be more in general but there's more demand in general too.
Given that one of the most promising trials is the Oxford/Astrazenica trial pooling our resources may not be helpful.
WH2020 will not only be mega-betting event. Is also shaping up to be the most expensive political campaign in US history.
Trump 2020 is like France 1940. Both wanting to repeat their 11th-hour victories in previous conflict. BUT history does NOT repeat itself, at least not that way.
In 2016, Trumpsky was convinced he was going to lose. He was wrong.
In 2020, he thinks he can win by re-running his previous campaign. Wrong again.
As Andy JS points out his approval rating today is back to his 2016 voteshare
So do YOU think Trumpsky can win by simply repeating his 2016 campaign? Strange, but most Republican strategists do NOT appear to share that view.
9% of voters are still undecided with Yougov USA, if Trump wins most of those he wins the election
Pretty big IF. Plus methinks Trumpsky has yet to hit bottom polling-wise.
Currently Biden is 9.6% ahead in the 538 polling average. Trump would need a frankly unbelievable number of undecideds to vote for him to win if the election were tomorrow.
Biden was 5% ahead with Yougov yesterday with 9% undecided
On the subject of air bridges, Australia has suspended all international passenger flights, except to and from New Zealand, until October 2020, and I don't think they're going to change that for us.
So, this is rather theoretical: "Good news travelers from Australia, the select number of you coming by private jet will not be forced to quarantine for 14 days!"
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.
On the subject of air bridges, Australia has suspended all international passenger flights, except to and from New Zealand, until October 2020, and I don't think they're going to change that for us.
So, this is rather theoretical: "Good news travelers from Australia, the select number of you coming by private jet will not be forced to quarantine for 14 days!"
Yes the PJ has always been a way to swerve so many restrictions.
Looking at Greece, they will "randomly test on arrival". It's quite a good nudge to say to those who might want to chance it if they are feeling under the weather to stay away.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
That tweet was contextualised with the caveat "... as white lives" as I recall. Which is guaranteed to rile up the alt-right, but if your only claim to identity is "whiteness" then you’ve got problems frankly.
The last I heard of this story is that the other tweets that attributed to her that were definitively over the line were fictions made up by trolls looking to stir up more conflict. IIRC the Daily Mail published the false ones & she is suing them for defamation isn’t she?
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.
Of course, Topping, of course.
How much for this bridge I have for sale?
The air one to the vatican? I'll swap it for an indulgence.
On the subject of air bridges, Australia has suspended all international passenger flights, except to and from New Zealand, until October 2020, and I don't think they're going to change that for us.
So, this is rather theoretical: "Good news travelers from Australia, the select number of you coming by private jet will not be forced to quarantine for 14 days!"
I’m going to keep buying shares in the owners of Skype and WebEx, and selling them in the owners of physical transport solutions, for a while longer.
Have you seen the consultation from OFQUAL on next year’s exams? They have suggested science for GCSE temporarily lose the practical element for this very reason.
I think that makes a lot of sense. If the US economic rebound continues, then President Trump has a good shot.
The problem is that unemployment will likely be going backwards again this month as large parts of the economy re-close again. The US has effectively gone back to peak infection levels by re-opening too quickly. Now, it may be that they can manage it from here better - treatments have certainly improved, there's far more PPE available, we now know how dangerous CV-19 is to care homes. But the risk is that the US sees a series of rolling de facto lockdowns, while the rest of the world recovers.
This is like the anti-GFC, where the US did the right thing quickly, and the rest of the world fucked around and got it wrong. This time, it's the US that messed up.
While it's nice to see Darren has a new source of money I actually think it is an easy action for the BBC to defend.
Is it? It looks like a pretty clear-cut case of libel, unless they can actually produce evidence of Darren Grimes sating what they say he said.
I've found no evidence of him saying it. The closest he comes is a video where he says "Have you ever said nothing for fear of being thought racist, sexist or homophobic?"
Which seems to be very different from the BBC's alleged description: "a safe space for racist, sexist and homophobic views"
Other evidence may emerge, but if that is what comes to court, he would probably win.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
That was always the slightly weird thing about Starkey, how in demand he was by QT and the like. I suppose the 'distinguished historian' fig leaf was handy though what they really wanted was the Faragist pus he enjoyed squirting over the airwaves.
That was my impression. Reactionary shock jock of the revolving bow tie sort employed to say fruity things.
Fair enough, why not. But he is a prime example of one of my most unfavourite types of bloke - the overbearing pontificating sort who feels entitled to be heard at great length on anything and everything. Throw in the politics and the mannered poshness and you've pretty much got a package that I can live without very easily indeed.
That said, I have been able to enjoy some of the historical documentaries he has done.
Have you seen the consultation from OFQUAL on next year’s exams? They have suggested science for GCSE temporarily lose the practical element for this very reason.
Jumping in as a physics teacher, but not the definite article, so to speak...
Pretty sensible. The practical endorsement was a pretty ingenious idea in the GCSE reforms; candidates have to have experience of doing the techniques embodied in the practicals. There is school-level checking, but no direct contribution to the main grade. It gets round the problem of the old controlled assessment, where it was rational to do the two assessed experiments to death and nothing else.
If there's going to be any sort of distancing for any length of time, I can't imagine how school lab practicals can possibly work- they're usually pair work at best at GCSE. So even if the more extreme adaptations turn out not to be necessary in September, this looks like an easy cut that won't do too much harm for one year.
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
That tweet was contextualised with the caveat "... as white lives" as I recall. Which is guaranteed to rile up the alt-right, but if your only claim to identity is "whiteness" then you’ve got problems frankly.
No, you can't get away with that one. The whole point of the cancel culture is that you are supposed to choose your language extremely carefully to avoid offence, even when no offence is intended or arises from the meaning of what you say ('coloured woman' vs 'woman of colour'). Saying 'Whlte lives don't matter', with all the contextualising in the world, 100% fails that very test which the wokeists themselves apply.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
That tweet was contextualised with the caveat "... as white lives" as I recall. Which is guaranteed to rile up the alt-right, but if your only claim to identity is "whiteness" then you’ve got problems frankly.
It was - but Twitter took it down. Not sure whether it was the bad publicity or they believed it was racist
To be blunt, since it seems she was deliberately trying to throw petrol on the fire, she should probably be sacked from Cambridge for being a complete moron.
That’s doubly so as (a) she’s notorious for slinging around accusations of racism on dubious grounds (she refused to attend King’s College because the porters called her ‘madam’, which she claimed was racist) and (b) her publication record is pathetic. Normally you would need six or seven books to be a professor in the liberal arts in a reputable U.K. university. She’s somehow managed it with two and a handful of articles. She’s actually published less than I have.
That begs a number of concerning questions about why and how she’s got where she has.
But in a sense, that’s tangential to the issue that Starkey’s comments were clearly unacceptable and he had to quit.
It's going to be a massive damp squib, we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
The red tops have been hyping “Super Saturday” all week as if it were a sporting event.
They’re totally desparate for a bunch of photos of idiots falling over, falling out of their dresses, or fighting in the streets tomorrow night. Yet more totally irresponsible journalism to add to the long list.
A damp squib would be very funny, but it only needs a few idiots and a camera, which is probably going to happen somewhere.
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
I don't think the EU is doing the research, rather private companies.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
That tweet was contextualised with the caveat "... as white lives" as I recall. Which is guaranteed to rile up the alt-right, but if your only claim to identity is "whiteness" then you’ve got problems frankly.
The last I heard of this story is that the other tweets that attributed to her that were definitively over the line were fictions made up by trolls looking to stir up more conflict. IIRC the Daily Mail published the false ones & she is suing them for defamation isn’t she?
Give over.
If she had said "Black Lives Don't Matter. As Black Lives", or "Jewish Lives Don't Matter" etc etc, she would have been sacked like Starkey for racism and race-baiting.
She should at the very least have been reprimanded by Cambridge, but instead they rushed out some sanctimonious claptrap about "the absolute right to free speech at universities", which, in today's climate, is just laughable
Have you seen the consultation from OFQUAL on next year’s exams? They have suggested science for GCSE temporarily lose the practical element for this very reason.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.
Of course, Topping, of course.
How much for this bridge I have for sale?
What we really need is proper biograph(ies) of the Godwinson family.
I'm glad restrictions are starting to be lifted but there's not a snowballs chance in hell I'd be going to the pub this weekend. To be fair with 2 small kids I rarely do anyway but still we've taken the same response to everything that's reopened - shops, parks etc - give it a week or two after reopening for things to calm down and then go without enormous queues.
For us more meaningfully tomorrow the playgrounds reopen tomorrow. Its been difficult explaining to a 3/4 year old why she can't go to the playground - especially since she can see it when we go out or if we go to the park. Won't be taking her tomorrow for the same reason as in the first paragraph but look forward to taking her in the next couple of weeks as it calms down . . . good to start getting some normality back.
Have you seen the consultation from OFQUAL on next year’s exams? They have suggested science for GCSE temporarily lose the practical element for this very reason.
Jumping in as a physics teacher, but not the definite article, so to speak...
Pretty sensible. The practical endorsement was a pretty ingenious idea in the GCSE reforms; candidates have to have experience of doing the techniques embodied in the practicals. There is school-level checking, but no direct contribution to the main grade. It gets round the problem of the old controlled assessment, where it was rational to do the two assessed experiments to death and nothing else.
If there's going to be any sort of distancing for any length of time, I can't imagine how school lab practicals can possibly work- they're usually pair work at best at GCSE. So even if the more extreme adaptations turn out not to be necessary in September, this looks like an easy cut that won't do too much harm for one year.
The stuff for History is rather weird and wonderful.
They’re also proposing to ditch the fieldwork element for GCSE geography in toto, but keep it for A-level. I imagine that’s because they consider smaller numbers will be easier to manage.
The idea in science seems to be that the students will watch practicals rather than do them. So say, you record it, stream it to Teams or Youtube or wherever, and they watch it. Or just find it online off the Beeb or whatever who will probably put up some good stuff on Bitesize if this goes ahead.
A substitute - not perhaps the most foolish of ideas though.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.
Of course, Topping, of course.
How much for this bridge I have for sale?
What we really need is proper biograph(ies) of the Godwinson family.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.
So on the one hand we have a hero who makes the world a better place, but hides it behind a mild mannered persona and acting as a journalist . . . and on the other hand we have the Man of Steel.
Yes, very good.
But re your point, no, a BRAND. And I do not "go on about it". I gave it an airing today for the 1st time in ages. Hopefully, one or two "Boris" posters who are not fans of his will at least think about maybe switching to "Johnson".
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.
So on the one hand we have a hero who makes the world a better place, but hides it behind a mild mannered persona and acting as a journalist . . . and on the other hand we have the Man of Steel.
Yes, very good.
But re your point, no, a BRAND. And I do not "go on about it". I gave it an airing today for the 1st time in ages. Hopefully, one or two "Boris" posters who are not fans of his will at least think about maybe switching to "Johnson".
This is all I ask or could ever hope for.
lol. It's never going to happen. For a start Boris or Bojo or whatever are shorter and therefore easier to type.
Moreover, if you say "Johnson" it's not instantly obvious who you mean, BECAUSE so many people refer to him, and know him, as "Boris".
You do love your little campaigns, but this is one that won't work
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
I'm glad restrictions are starting to be lifted but there's not a snowballs chance in hell I'd be going to the pub this weekend. To be fair with 2 small kids I rarely do anyway but still we've taken the same response to everything that's reopened - shops, parks etc - give it a week or two after reopening for things to calm down and then go without enormous queues.
For us more meaningfully tomorrow the playgrounds reopen tomorrow. Its been difficult explaining to a 3/4 year old why she can't go to the playground - especially since she can see it when we go out or if we go to the park. Won't be taking her tomorrow for the same reason as in the first paragraph but look forward to taking her in the next couple of weeks as it calms down . . . good to start getting some normality back.
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
That tweet was contextualised with the caveat "... as white lives" as I recall. Which is guaranteed to rile up the alt-right, but if your only claim to identity is "whiteness" then you’ve got problems frankly.
The last I heard of this story is that the other tweets that attributed to her that were definitively over the line were fictions made up by trolls looking to stir up more conflict. IIRC the Daily Mail published the false ones & she is suing them for defamation isn’t she?
Give over.
If she had said "Black Lives Don't Matter. As Black Lives", or "Jewish Lives Don't Matter" etc etc, she would have been sacked like Starkey for racism and race-baiting.
She should at the very least have been reprimanded by Cambridge, but instead they rushed out some sanctimonious claptrap about "the absolute right to free speech at universities", which, in today's climate, is just laughable
I agree: it was deliberately inflammatory. But it wasn’t (quite) the thing that people accused her of.
As I said on the PT the additional weighting for non college whites may well be overdone. Hilary riled that group up with her arrogant condescension better than the average remainer. Joe, with his close links to Unions, will feel like one of them. Even if they are not a fan they are not going to be incentivised to vote against him or for Trump. Joe will get more of their votes (especially women) and fewer of them will vote at all.
For me Trump could only repeat his 2016 success by delivering bigly on the economy. In fairness, pre Covid, he had quite a lot to say in that connection but he now looks sunk. Almost certainly he is going to be going into this election with the highest unemployment since Hoover, determined to attack the healthcare of those who have lost their jobs in the middle of a pandemic. I am really struggling to see what could save him now.
He needs a black swan - which by definition is difficult to conceive.
Comments
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-app-identified-leicester-as-a-virus-hotspot-weeks-ago/
Maybe they should allow sandpaper for this season?
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
I wonder if they might be value for podium places...
In Scotland, the daily reported figures are only capturing about 60% of Covid deaths (as of 28 June there are 4,155 Covid-19 deaths reported by NRS when the Scottish Government had reported 2,482). As of 19th June there were 39,694 deaths reported in England and Wales by DHSC and the ONS had reported 49,610, which is closer to 80%.
But cherry-pickers gonna cherry-pick.
But if I had a big interest in Henry VII - yes.
You're not going up against the whole PB community on this one, are you?
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278769092380499970?s=20
Are cafes allowed to open yet .. in England? Logically, they ought to open before pubs, but one can never predict the next episode of this long-running farce 'Carry on Corona'.
Yesterday Monmouth had Biden had 12% ahead. So what?
Perez does have a good track record eking out podium places but Verstappen's very good.
In hindsight it looks like a very good decision.
But I am in any case thinking of the weekly NRS data (NRS are of course a Scottish Gmt agency). The apparent underrreporting took place in April/May anyway, so was quite some time ago. Probabloy a procedural issue but we never found out what it was.
Sweden
US
Canada
All of Central and South America
Bermuda [but most Caribbean islands are included]
All of Africa
China
Thailand
Cambodia
Laos
Malaysia
Singapore
Israel
Gulf States
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Edit: Idiot that I am. It was Harold Macmillan who was first.
(We've been over this.)
So on the one hand we have a hero who makes the world a better place, but hides it behind a mild mannered persona and acting as a journalist . . . and on the other hand we have the Man of Steel.
Just kidding, we already know that one...
Or it it simply that EU= good and UK=bad?
Have you seen the consultation from OFQUAL on next year’s exams? They have suggested science for GCSE temporarily lose the practical element for this very reason.
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1279063444126400513
It’s a fact that there is much more production capacity in Europe than in the UK - and that will be a constraint in delivering a vaccine rapidly and in bulk.
Given that one of the most promising trials is the Oxford/Astrazenica trial pooling our resources may not be helpful.
So, this is rather theoretical: "Good news travelers from Australia, the select number of you coming by private jet will not be forced to quarantine for 14 days!"
How much for this bridge I have for sale?
Looking at Greece, they will "randomly test on arrival". It's quite a good nudge to say to those who might want to chance it if they are feeling under the weather to stay away.
The last I heard of this story is that the other tweets that attributed to her that were definitively over the line were fictions made up by trolls looking to stir up more conflict. IIRC the Daily Mail published the false ones & she is suing them for defamation isn’t she?
The problem is that unemployment will likely be going backwards again this month as large parts of the economy re-close again. The US has effectively gone back to peak infection levels by re-opening too quickly. Now, it may be that they can manage it from here better - treatments have certainly improved, there's far more PPE available, we now know how dangerous CV-19 is to care homes. But the risk is that the US sees a series of rolling de facto lockdowns, while the rest of the world recovers.
This is like the anti-GFC, where the US did the right thing quickly, and the rest of the world fucked around and got it wrong. This time, it's the US that messed up.
Which seems to be very different from the BBC's alleged description: "a safe space for racist, sexist and homophobic views"
Other evidence may emerge, but if that is what comes to court, he would probably win.
Fair enough, why not. But he is a prime example of one of my most unfavourite types of bloke - the overbearing pontificating sort who feels entitled to be heard at great length on anything and everything. Throw in the politics and the mannered poshness and you've pretty much got a package that I can live without very easily indeed.
That said, I have been able to enjoy some of the historical documentaries he has done.
Pretty sensible. The practical endorsement was a pretty ingenious idea in the GCSE reforms; candidates have to have experience of doing the techniques embodied in the practicals. There is school-level checking, but no direct contribution to the main grade. It gets round the problem of the old controlled assessment, where it was rational to do the two assessed experiments to death and nothing else.
If there's going to be any sort of distancing for any length of time, I can't imagine how school lab practicals can possibly work- they're usually pair work at best at GCSE. So even if the more extreme adaptations turn out not to be necessary in September, this looks like an easy cut that won't do too much harm for one year.
https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/1279022078809825282?s=09
To be blunt, since it seems she was deliberately trying to throw petrol on the fire, she should probably be sacked from Cambridge for being a complete moron.
That’s doubly so as (a) she’s notorious for slinging around accusations of racism on dubious grounds (she refused to attend King’s College because the porters called her ‘madam’, which she claimed was racist) and (b) her publication record is pathetic. Normally you would need six or seven books to be a professor in the liberal arts in a reputable U.K. university. She’s somehow managed it with two and a handful of articles. She’s actually published less than I have.
That begs a number of concerning questions about why and how she’s got where she has.
But in a sense, that’s tangential to the issue that Starkey’s comments were clearly unacceptable and he had to quit.
They’re totally desparate for a bunch of photos of idiots falling over, falling out of their dresses, or fighting in the streets tomorrow night. Yet more totally irresponsible journalism to add to the long list.
A damp squib would be very funny, but it only needs a few idiots and a camera, which is probably going to happen somewhere.
If she had said "Black Lives Don't Matter. As Black Lives", or "Jewish Lives Don't Matter" etc etc, she would have been sacked like Starkey for racism and race-baiting.
She should at the very least have been reprimanded by Cambridge, but instead they rushed out some sanctimonious claptrap about "the absolute right to free speech at universities", which, in today's climate, is just laughable
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-launches-consultation-on-2021-exams-and-assessments
Worth reading if only for further proof that OFQUAL have lost what plot they ever had.
And then make into a mini-series.
For us more meaningfully tomorrow the playgrounds reopen tomorrow. Its been difficult explaining to a 3/4 year old why she can't go to the playground - especially since she can see it when we go out or if we go to the park. Won't be taking her tomorrow for the same reason as in the first paragraph but look forward to taking her in the next couple of weeks as it calms down . . . good to start getting some normality back.
Good luck to all hospitality businesses!
They’re also proposing to ditch the fieldwork element for GCSE geography in toto, but keep it for A-level. I imagine that’s because they consider smaller numbers will be easier to manage.
The idea in science seems to be that the students will watch practicals rather than do them. So say, you record it, stream it to Teams or Youtube or wherever, and they watch it. Or just find it online off the Beeb or whatever who will probably put up some good stuff on Bitesize if this goes ahead.
A substitute - not perhaps the most foolish of ideas though.
But re your point, no, a BRAND. And I do not "go on about it". I gave it an airing today for the 1st time in ages. Hopefully, one or two "Boris" posters who are not fans of his will at least think about maybe switching to "Johnson".
This is all I ask or could ever hope for.
Moreover, if you say "Johnson" it's not instantly obvious who you mean, BECAUSE so many people refer to him, and know him, as "Boris".
You do love your little campaigns, but this is one that won't work
Labour building bridges with the DUP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-49661019
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.