politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020 looks set to be the biggest political betting event of
Options
Comments
-
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:0 -
Speaking as a PBer with at least six of David Starkey's DVDs on the shelf behind me, and maybe a couple more in the other room, I too enjoyed his documentaries and avoided his musings on other subjects.kinabalu said:
That was my impression. Reactionary shock jock of the revolving bow tie sort employed to say fruity things.Theuniondivvie said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
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.0 -
Big week for me.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...1 -
Any tips for the nags?DecrepiterJohnL said:
Tomorrow is Derby Day.Mexicanpete said:
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
(I’ll try and contribute some more for the racing cars).0 -
True, how are racecourses making any money without spectators ?DecrepiterJohnL said:
Tomorrow is Derby Day.Mexicanpete said:
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day.
However a rainy day at Catterick less so.0 -
To me, her tweet was right up to the line. I’m not surprised that Twitter took it down. (did they? or was that the other fake tweets?)ydoethur said:
It was - but Twitter took it down. Not sure whether it was the bad publicity or they believed it was racistPhil said:
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.LadyG said:
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?Richard_Nabavi said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
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
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.
I’m not qualified to comment on her academic record.
Starkey is a disappointment though.0 -
If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !).
I think he wins the libel action if they don't.0 -
Oi - gaslighting!TOPPING said:
So you don't care that he is a racist? Noted.kinabalu said:
No.TOPPING said:
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?kinabalu said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
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?0 -
It was one of the purest example of race-baiting that I have seen.Phil said:
I agree: it was deliberately inflammatory. But it wasn’t (quite) the thing that people accused her of.LadyG said:
Give over.Phil said:
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.LadyG said:
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?Richard_Nabavi said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
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
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?
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
It was inflammatory, nasty, provocative, ugly, and, to most people, clearly racist. "White Lives Don't Matter".
It was also utterly pointless, apart from stirring up racialised grievance and anxiety, and delivering more attention to Ms Gopal, attention which she clearly adores
She's a race-baiter, and she does not benefit the reputation of Cambridge.
0 -
Don’t they get a cut from the bookies? Or is that only the on-course ones?Yorkcity said:
True, how are racecourses making any money without spectators ?DecrepiterJohnL said:
Tomorrow is Derby Day.Mexicanpete said:
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day.
However a rainy day at Catterick less so.0 -
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.TOPPING said:
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.Philip_Thompson said:
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?TOPPING said:
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.RobD said:
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?nico67 said:
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 .RobD said:
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?Scott_xP said:
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?0 -
Yes, Twitter took it down as being abusive and harmful. It is staggering she was not even asked to apologise, by CambridgePhil said:
To me, her tweet was right up to the line. I’m not surprised that Twitter took it down. (did they? or was that the other fake tweets?)ydoethur said:
It was - but Twitter took it down. Not sure whether it was the bad publicity or they believed it was racistPhil said:
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.LadyG said:
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?Richard_Nabavi said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
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
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.
I’m not qualified to comment on her academic record.
Starkey is a disappointment though.0 -
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:0 -
His regime also, AIUI..... stand to be corrected....... brought peace and stability after a somewhat horrendous several years. And there's nothing your average peasant and merchant likes better than a chance to get on with whatever it is they do without having their sons dragged away to fight in wars the purpose of which they only dimly understand, and care even less.ydoethur said:
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.Nigelb said:
1. I'd be extremely surprised.TOPPING said:
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?kinabalu said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
Although as, IIRC< Mr Malmesbury pointed out the other day, the bitterness engendered by those wars travels down the ages.0 -
York has loads of pubs in the city centre.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Maybe fill !!!!!Mexicanpete said:
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
However many are very small , hard to see them making a living, even with the reduction to 1m plus social distancing.0 -
Where did I refer to "EU trials"?Philip_Thompson said:
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.TOPPING said:
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.Philip_Thompson said:
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?TOPPING said:
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.RobD said:
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?nico67 said:
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 .RobD said:
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?Scott_xP said:
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?0 -
Here you go, one of the main candidates is this one:Philip_Thompson said:
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.TOPPING said:
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.Philip_Thompson said:
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?TOPPING said:
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.RobD said:
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?nico67 said:
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 .RobD said:
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?Scott_xP said:
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1034
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-data/
(although I think the EU's new announcement is more about buying power than research).1 -
Presumably sponsors and media rights holders are paying the event staging cost themselves, as with F1?Yorkcity said:
True, how are racecourses making any money without spectators ?DecrepiterJohnL said:
Tomorrow is Derby Day.Mexicanpete said:
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day.
However a rainy day at Catterick less so.0 -
Ah, the "shirt tucked into underpants" meme. Yes, that was enormously damaging for Major. Johnson takes no chances on that score. Shirt rarely tucked into anything.Carnyx said:
In any case, it was John Major who first channelled Superman. Or am I too influenced by Steve Bell's cartoons?kinabalu said:
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.kinabalu said:
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.Philip_Thompson said:
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.LostPassword said:
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.Philip_Thompson said:
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.Stocky said:
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.TOPPING said:As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
"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.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
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).
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.
What's going on there?
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.
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.
Edit: Idiot that I am. It was Harold Macmillan who was first.2 -
Worthily E/W at 40/1Sandpit said:
Any tips for the nags?DecrepiterJohnL said:
Tomorrow is Derby Day.Mexicanpete said:
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
(I’ll try and contribute some more for the racing cars).
Gosden would not run him unless he had showed him something special2 -
I haven't seen the film Gaslight, but I believe the plot centres around a man deliberately convincing a woman she is insane. My understanding of the term now is that someone says they are experiencing racism and someone else says they are not, trying to make the racism sufferer think that they are crazy. I can see why the term gaslight was chosen, but unless the gaslighter has deliberately perpetrated the racism themselves, a vital component is surely missing. They are not gaslighting; they're disagreeing.TOPPING said:Big week for me.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...0 -
Press up conference surely? The challenge has been issued.Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
3 -
No. There had been instability from 1483-1485, but that was preceded by twelve years of peace.OldKingCole said:
His regime also, AIUI..... stand to be corrected....... brought peace and stability after a somewhat horrendous several years. And there's nothing your average peasant and merchant likes better than a chance to get on with whatever it is they do without having their sons dragged away to fight in wars the purpose of which they only dimly understand, and care even less.ydoethur said:
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.Nigelb said:
1. I'd be extremely surprised.TOPPING said:
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?kinabalu said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
Although as, IIRC< Mr Malmesbury pointed out the other day, the bitterness engendered by those wars travels down the ages.
Edward IV ended the Wars of the Roses at Tewkesbury with the deaths of Edward Prince of Wales and the last of the male Beauforts. His second reign was noted for its calm and prosperity.
Yes, Richard stupidly buggered everything up through his greed and ambition but the actual fighting was pretty limited. Bosworth was the only battle, and compared to Tewkesbury, Barnet, Towton, Northampton or even Hexham it was barely more than a skirmish.0 -
class="Quote" rel="ydoethur">
I thought that was Johnson’s idea?CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1279072757922267139
Labour building bridges with the DUP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-49661019
Starmer's bridge building, so lacks the ambition of Johnson's bridges.0 -
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma1 -
That was my impression too. Their previous attempts seemed very sluggish though, which isn't too surprising given the level of bureaucracy it must involve.Richard_Nabavi said:
Here you go, one of the main candidates is this one:Philip_Thompson said:
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.TOPPING said:
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.Philip_Thompson said:
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?TOPPING said:
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.RobD said:
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?nico67 said:
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 .RobD said:
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?Scott_xP said:
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1034
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-data/
(although I think the EU's new announcement is more about buying power than research).0 -
Of course it is.Richard_Nabavi said:
Here you go, one of the main candidates is this one:Philip_Thompson said:
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.TOPPING said:
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.Philip_Thompson said:
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?TOPPING said:
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.RobD said:
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?nico67 said:
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 .RobD said:
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?Scott_xP said:
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1034
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-data/
(although I think the EU's new announcement is more about buying power than research).
Gov't just needs to spin it as cherry picking from the EU for domestic purposes if questioned about it.0 -
Anyone who does press-ups wearing a tie is asking for trouble!kinabalu said:
Ah, the "shirt tucked into underpants" meme. Yes, that was enormously damaging for Major. Johnson takes no chances on that score. Shirt rarely tucked into anything.Carnyx said:
In any case, it was John Major who first channelled Superman. Or am I too influenced by Steve Bell's cartoons?kinabalu said:
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.kinabalu said:
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.Philip_Thompson said:
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.LostPassword said:
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.Philip_Thompson said:
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.Stocky said:
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.TOPPING said:As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
"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.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
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).
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.
What's going on there?
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.
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.
Edit: Idiot that I am. It was Harold Macmillan who was first.1 -
Genuine lol!Theuniondivvie said:
Press up conference surely? The challenge has been issued.Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
0 -
Exactly.Luckyguy1983 said:
I haven't seen the film Gaslight, but I believe the plot centres around a man deliberately convincing a woman she is insane. My understanding of the term now is that someone says they are experiencing racism and someone else says they are not, trying to make the racism sufferer think that they are crazy. I can see why the term gaslight was chosen, but unless the gaslighter has deliberately perpetrated the racism themselves, a vital component is surely missing. They are not gaslighting; they're disagreeing.TOPPING said:Big week for me.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...0 -
Sure - there's a chance the eventual vaccine could be US IP though - best to be with the EU if that's the case.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma0 -
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.LadyG said:The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma0 -
CORRECTION: the UK is not in the EU.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma0 -
To be honest ydoethur I do not know.ydoethur said:
Don’t they get a cut from the bookies? Or is that only the on-course ones?Yorkcity said:
True, how are racecourses making any money without spectators ?DecrepiterJohnL said:
Tomorrow is Derby Day.Mexicanpete said:
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris doing a press conference at 5.00pm tonight
Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day.
However a rainy day at Catterick less so.
York racecourse has a massive hospitality sector , when not in racing use .
Weddings , functions etc.
Also live music events.
On a big race day at York, they get 30 thousand or more on the course , drinking and eating as well as on course betting.
So most of their income seems to have gone, until it fully resumes.
York only has flat racing , May until October.1 -
Actually, we are, de facto if not de jure, until the end of the yearTOPPING said:
CORRECTION: the UK is not in the EU.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma0 -
The times are changing though, Richard. Both Astra and GSK are investing in vaccine production, GSK partnered with Sanofi recently to that end.Richard_Nabavi said:
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.LadyG said:The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.1 -
No, it is about the brand. None of that changes the point at issue. And you say this - about "little campaigns" - but how many movements that end up delivering sweeping societal change start just like this with one or two people on the internet? (in this case me and OLB)LadyG said:
lol. It's never going to happen. For a start Boris or Bojo or whatever are shorter and therefore easier to type.kinabalu said:
Yes, very good.Philip_Thompson said:
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.kinabalu said:
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.kinabalu said:
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.Philip_Thompson said:
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.LostPassword said:
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.Philip_Thompson said:
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.Stocky said:
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.TOPPING said:As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
"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.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
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).
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.
What's going on there?
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.
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.
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.
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
Answer. Not many. But it does happen. Mighty oaks from. A journey of a thousand starts with. All those cliches. Cliches for a reason. It does happen. Just need a hashtag.
#killboris0 -
It's also more than possible that there are multiple vaccines, each with different trade offs.Pulpstar said:
Sure - there's a chance the eventual vaccine could be US IP though - best to be with the EU if that's the case.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma1 -
Had we remained, we would have held all the cards!TOPPING said:
CORRECTION: the UK is not in the EU.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma0 -
.
Cherrypicking? from the EU? Now I've seen everything.MaxPB said:
The times are changing though, Richard. Both Astra and GSK are investing in vaccine production, GSK partnered with Sanofi recently to that end.Richard_Nabavi said:
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.LadyG said:The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.2 -
Ill-advised, methinkskinabalu said:
No, it is about the brand. None of that changes the point at issue. And you say that - about "little campaigns" - but how many movements that end up delivering sweeping societal change start just like this with one person on the internet?LadyG said:
lol. It's never going to happen. For a start Boris or Bojo or whatever are shorter and therefore easier to type.kinabalu said:
Yes, very good.Philip_Thompson said:
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.kinabalu said:
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.kinabalu said:
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.Philip_Thompson said:
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.LostPassword said:
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.Philip_Thompson said:
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.Stocky said:
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.TOPPING said:As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
"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.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
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).
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.
What's going on there?
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.
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.
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.
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
Not many.
But it does happen. Mighty oaks from. A journey of a thousand starts with. All those cliches. Cliches for a reason. It does happen. Just need a hashtag.
#killboris0 -
UK data out - 544 cases
England Regional Case Data (Pillar 1 & 2)
As ever last 3-5 days will be revised - last 5 days included for completeness
0 -
Not according to Mr "Get Brexit Done" Johnson.LadyG said:
Actually, we are, de facto if not de jure, until the end of the yearTOPPING said:
CORRECTION: the UK is not in the EU.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma1 -
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.Pulpstar said:If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !).
I think he wins the libel action if they don't.0 -
Definitely. The Chinese are already vaccinating their army with one, for example.rcs1000 said:
It's also more than possible that there are multiple vaccines, each with different trade offs.Pulpstar said:
Sure - there's a chance the eventual vaccine could be US IP though - best to be with the EU if that's the case.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma0 -
England cases by lower level authority -
1 -
Richard III? Or some other princes?TOPPING said:
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.ydoethur said:
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.Nigelb said:
1. I'd be extremely surprised.TOPPING said:
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?kinabalu said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.0 -
These are great btw, do you think you could upload them as PNGs as the quality would be much better.Malmesbury said:England cases by lower level authority -
0 -
England case data spreadsheet -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wpn4jT9O9Bt33KHmMXOxvueY9tLa-Zva/view?usp=sharing1 -
Can I recommend, Friday 3rd July 2020, 17.00 on BBC1 Car Crash TV.
Unmissable!0 -
Are the facilities in the UK? Or just the parent companies?MaxPB said:
The times are changing though, Richard. Both Astra and GSK are investing in vaccine production, GSK partnered with Sanofi recently to that end.Richard_Nabavi said:
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.LadyG said:The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.0 -
Ask Boris.LadyG said:
Actually, we are, de facto if not de jure, until the end of the yearTOPPING said:
CORRECTION: the UK is not in the EU.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma0 -
EU countries already have an agreement with AstraZeneca on the Oxford vaccine:MaxPB said:
The times are changing though, Richard. Both Astra and GSK are investing in vaccine production, GSK partnered with Sanofi recently to that end.Richard_Nabavi said:
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.LadyG said:The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazeneca-to-supply-europe-with-up-to-400-million-doses-of-oxford-universitys-vaccine-at-no-profit.html
AZ are going to be manufacturing it in various countries (either themselves or with partners) including a large chunk of the production in the EU.
0 -
"The" princes.turbotubbs said:
Richard III? Or some other princes?TOPPING said:
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.ydoethur said:
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.Nigelb said:
1. I'd be extremely surprised.TOPPING said:
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?kinabalu said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.0 -
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegationFF43 said:
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.Pulpstar said:If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !).
I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1279075465018343424
As I said before I suspect there is enough information online to (at the very least) provide some confirmation of the comment,.0 -
I do - increased the resolution at the cost of size...MaxPB said:
These are great btw, do you think you could upload them as PNGs as the quality would be much better.Malmesbury said:England cases by lower level authority -
deleted
0 -
Boris and the Boffins are up.0
-
Aren't there cases of racist gaslighters telling folk who have experienced racism that they have not? Isn't that the point?Luckyguy1983 said:
I haven't seen the film Gaslight, but I believe the plot centres around a man deliberately convincing a woman she is insane. My understanding of the term now is that someone says they are experiencing racism and someone else says they are not, trying to make the racism sufferer think that they are crazy. I can see why the term gaslight was chosen, but unless the gaslighter has deliberately perpetrated the racism themselves, a vital component is surely missing. They are not gaslighting; they're disagreeing.TOPPING said:Big week for me.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...
'Thas not racist, just a bit of banter. You dusky folk need to grow a thicker skin or find a sense of humour if yer gonna fit in. Dunno what the world's cumming to..' etc etc0 -
I'm obliged. Actually, as far as your average etc was concerned, starting the fighting up again would have been a real no-no.ydoethur said:
No. There had been instability from 1483-1485, but that was preceded by twelve years of peace.OldKingCole said:
His regime also, AIUI..... stand to be corrected....... brought peace and stability after a somewhat horrendous several years. And there's nothing your average peasant and merchant likes better than a chance to get on with whatever it is they do without having their sons dragged away to fight in wars the purpose of which they only dimly understand, and care even less.ydoethur said:
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.Nigelb said:
1. I'd be extremely surprised.TOPPING said:
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?kinabalu said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
Although as, IIRC< Mr Malmesbury pointed out the other day, the bitterness engendered by those wars travels down the ages.
Edward IV ended the Wars of the Roses at Tewkesbury with the deaths of Edward Prince of Wales and the last of the male Beauforts. His second reign was noted for its calm and prosperity.
Yes, Richard stupidly buggered everything up through his greed and ambition but the actual fighting was pretty limited. Bosworth was the only battle, and compared to Tewkesbury, Barnet, Towton, Northampton or even Hexham it was barely more than a skirmish.
In spite of moving to science I've always been interested in history. Currently 'doing' a history counterfactual course on line.with the WEA. Not particularly impressed with it so far, (What if William the Bastard had lost at Hastings....... personally I thought it would have been more interesting if it had been 'what if' Harold II had lost at Stamford Bridge) but next week we're doing 'what if the Pope had granted Henry VIII an annulment'. TBH, IMHO although we might have saved some of England and Wales historic art, it wouldn't have made all that difference.0 -
The mother of my eldest angrily accused me of "gaslighting" her. Whilst she was trying (and failing) to financially blackmail me. Since then I completely ignore the word as meaningless guff.TOPPING said:Big week for me.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...0 -
There’s going to be a very interesting balance to be struck between governments, regulatory authorities, IP owners and manufacturers, when it comes to vaccines.
In the end, there will probably be one or two vaccines approved, and every available production facility on the planet churning them out 24/7 as everyone else argues about the bill.
Not sure anyone’s going to trust the Chinese, who are testing at large scale on their own military.0 -
Alright. Suppose that could be deliberately misconstrued by mischief makers. Let me work on it.LadyG said:
Ill-advised, methinkskinabalu said:
No, it is about the brand. None of that changes the point at issue. And you say that - about "little campaigns" - but how many movements that end up delivering sweeping societal change start just like this with one person on the internet?LadyG said:
lol. It's never going to happen. For a start Boris or Bojo or whatever are shorter and therefore easier to type.kinabalu said:
Yes, very good.Philip_Thompson said:
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.kinabalu said:
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.kinabalu said:
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.Philip_Thompson said:
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.LostPassword said:
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.Philip_Thompson said:
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.Stocky said:
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.TOPPING said:As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
"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.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
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).
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.
What's going on there?
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.
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.
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.
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
Not many.
But it does happen. Mighty oaks from. A journey of a thousand starts with. All those cliches. Cliches for a reason. It does happen. Just need a hashtag.
#killboris0 -
We have automatic right to these programmes until the end of the year. It's a case of whether we join in, where according to the government sources quoted by the article the trade-off is between Brexit dogma* and a more effective vaccine programme in the UK.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
* I am interpreting "political desire to sever ties with Brussels" as Brexit dogma.1 -
Do we? The UK isn't an EU member anymore.FF43 said:
We have automatic right to these programmes until the end of the year. It's a case of whether we join in, where according to the government sources quoted by the article the trade-off is between Brexit dogma and a more effective vaccine programme in the UK.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:0 -
Yep. That's me too. And now we will not have to avoid his off piste musings.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Speaking as a PBer with at least six of David Starkey's DVDs on the shelf behind me, and maybe a couple more in the other room, I too enjoyed his documentaries and avoided his musings on other subjects.kinabalu said:
That was my impression. Reactionary shock jock of the revolving bow tie sort employed to say fruity things.Theuniondivvie said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
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.
It's cancel culture at it's very best.1 -
Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.2
-
Just noticed this. Inter aliis, more on Mr Johnson and Superman (this time his own analogy for Brexitania).
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson0 -
"The question isn't whether Trump will find a way to beat Biden, it's whether Biden will find a way to lose to Trump."
Exactly. In 20116, Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. NOT just because of one dumb remark ("deplorables") but instead for a whole series of mistakes, miscalculations, etc. etc. Such as NEVER campaigning in Wisconsin, picking Tim Kaine as running mate (he did nothing for her except in VA which she'd have won without him on the ticket), and ignoring blue-collar White voters in pursuit of boosting Black voter turnout.
Biden will make mistakes & of course gaffes. BUT not the kind of fundamental strategic errors that sunk Hillary.1 -
Can you point me to figures comparing UK vaccine manufacturing capacity with that based in the EU ? (I suspect not.)Philip_Thompson said:
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?TOPPING said:
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.RobD said:
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?nico67 said:
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 .RobD said:
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?Scott_xP said:
Production capacity is as important, if not more so, in delivering vaccines on a mass scale as the vaccine development itself.
As far as European vaccine efforts are concerned, there are a number.
Here's a recent list of the most advanced/promising vaccine programs:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/06/29/coronavirus-vaccine-update-june-29
I've listed the European based involvement below:
Reithera (Italy)
Merck (US) /Themis (Austria)
Pfizer (US)/Biontech (Germany)
CureVac (Germany)
Sanofi (France)/Translate (US)
Sanofi (France)/ GSK (UK)
0 -
If Brexit dogma wins over an effective vaccine programme, then PM Johnson runs the risk of going down as far more inept, and worthy of excoriation, than Lord North, Cameron or May.FF43 said:
We have automatic right to these programmes until the end of the year. It's a case of whether we join in, where according to the government sources quoted by the article the trade-off is between Brexit dogma* and a more effective vaccine programme in the UK.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
* I am interpreting "political desire to sever ties with Brussels" as Brexit dogma.0 -
Of course, for hardcore Remainers it’s “Brexit dogma vs saving lives”. For the government, it’s a balance of ability to acquire IP and manufacturing facility capacity, against the chance that someone else refuses to deal with the UK a as a point of dogmatic principle.FF43 said:
We have automatic right to these programmes until the end of the year. It's a case of whether we join in, where according to the government sources quoted by the article the trade-off is between Brexit dogma* and a more effective vaccine programme in the UK.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
* I am interpreting "political desire to sever ties with Brussels" as Brexit dogma.0 -
I always associated the term "gaslighting" to specifically refer to cases of domestic abuse.
It most certainly does exist in that context and is a useful and widespread term for some awful behaviours.
I have only come across it today in other situations. Not sure it serves any great purpose in these if it merely means "not in agreement with me."0 -
Also note where the solicitor's letter quotes directly and where it refers indirectly to speech made. I think it's the indirect part that is key here.eek said:
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegationFF43 said:
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.Pulpstar said:If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !).
I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1279075465018343424
As I said before I suspect there is enough information online to (at the very least) provide some confirmation of the comment,.0 -
I remember several years ago I arranged to meet a client for a breakfast meeting in the City and he took me to a pub in Smithfields and there we sat at 7.30am supping pints...Richard_Nabavi said:Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.
1 -
That will almost certainly be the case.rcs1000 said:
It's also more than possible that there are multiple vaccines, each with different trade offs.Pulpstar said:
Sure - there's a chance the eventual vaccine could be US IP though - best to be with the EU if that's the case.LadyG said:
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.Pulpstar said:
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.FF43 said:"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.Scott_xP said:
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
And until they've been in widespread use, our knowledge of the trade-offs will be a little hazy.0 -
Clinton has a tin ear when it comes to elective politics - unlike Bill. To you list I would add blowing off meetings with core Democrat groups like the Teachers Unions, taking a holiday in the Hamptons in the middle of the Campaign and the paid closed door events at venues such as Goldman Sachs.SeaShantyIrish2 said:"The question isn't whether Trump will find a way to beat Biden, it's whether Biden will find a way to lose to Trump."
Exactly. In 20116, Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. NOT just because of one dumb remark ("deplorables") but instead for a whole series of mistakes, miscalculations, etc. etc. Such as NEVER campaigning in Wisconsin, picking Tim Kaine as running mate (he did nothing for her except in VA which she'd have won without him on the ticket), and ignoring blue-collar White voters in pursuit of boosting Black voter turnout.
Biden will make mistakes & of course gaffes. BUT not the kind of fundamental strategic errors that sunk Hillary.0 -
Yay! FCO says I can go to Singapore!
Singapore says no.
As do many of the countries on the list.....
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-countries-and-territories-exempt-from-advice-against-all-but-essential-international-travel1 -
Bill knows quite a lot about blowing off.Malmesbury said:
Clinton has a tin ear when it comes to elective politics - unlike Bill. To you list I would add blowing off meetings with core Democrat groups like the Teachers Unions, taking a holiday in the Hamptons in the middle of the Campaign and the paid closed door events at venues such as Goldman Sachs.SeaShantyIrish2 said:"The question isn't whether Trump will find a way to beat Biden, it's whether Biden will find a way to lose to Trump."
Exactly. In 20116, Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. NOT just because of one dumb remark ("deplorables") but instead for a whole series of mistakes, miscalculations, etc. etc. Such as NEVER campaigning in Wisconsin, picking Tim Kaine as running mate (he did nothing for her except in VA which she'd have won without him on the ticket), and ignoring blue-collar White voters in pursuit of boosting Black voter turnout.
Biden will make mistakes & of course gaffes. BUT not the kind of fundamental strategic errors that sunk Hillary.0 -
FF43 said:
Also note where the solicitor's letter quotes directly and where it refers indirectly to speech made. I think it's the indirect part that is key here.eek said:
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegationFF43 said:
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.Pulpstar said:If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !).
I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1279075465018343424
As I said before I suspect there is enough information online to (at the very least) provide some confirmation of the comment,.
That's the video I saw. And Grimes specifically does NOT say what the BBC claimsFF43 said:
Also note where the solicitor's letter quotes directly and where it refers indirectly to speech made. I think it's the indirect part that is key here.eek said:
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegationFF43 said:
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.Pulpstar said:If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !).
I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1279075465018343424
As I said before I suspect there is enough information online to (at the very least) provide some confirmation of the comment,.
The BBC says Grimes describes his site as "a safe space for racist or homophobic views"
Grimes there says: "do you hide your political views FOR FEAR of being called racist" etc etc
FOR FEAR is the crucial distinction. It is absolutely disingenuous to ignore this1 -
As the solicitor is clearly not doing it on a contingency basis, I suspect all he sees is someone willing to give his firm a large sum of money for a pointless case (and Grimes appears to have the ability to get people to give him money to pass on to said law firm).FF43 said:
Also note where the solicitor's letter quotes directly and where it refers indirectly to speech made. I think it's the indirect part that is key here.eek said:
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegationFF43 said:
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.Pulpstar said:If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !).
I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1279075465018343424
As I said before I suspect there is enough information online to (at the very least) provide some confirmation of the comment,.0 -
The Smithfield pubs were always fun - the all night clubbers mixing with the porters and the drink-my-breakfast crowd.TOPPING said:
I remember several years ago I arranged to meet a client for a breakfast meeting in the City and he took me to a pub in Smithfields and there we sat at 7.30am supping pints...Richard_Nabavi said:Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.
1 -
Strong winds already here in south Devon. Sit in a beer garden - and you are likely to get hit around the head with flying furniture.....Big_G_NorthWales said:Maybe the weather this weekend will dampen enthusiasm to go to the pub
https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/1279022078809825282?s=091 -
Starkey enjoys - or at least used to enjoy - being controversial and colorful, both for internal amusement AND for external publicity. Which is fine 99% of the time BUT there's that 1% when it is NOT.
In this case, he opened his mouth and ran right into a buzz-saw. Should have known better. Apparently didn't notice some rather striking cases here in US recently where various celebrities, business leaders, etc. did the same thing, and found themselves holding their fool heads in a basket.
My guess is that, if DS found himself in the court of Henry VIII, he'd have lasted about a week. One funny remark to many and . . . his head would be grinning from atop the Tower Gate.0 -
I think it's heavily overused in reference to politics, to the point where it's not really clear if it has a meaning any more. To the extent that it does mean something beyond just "saying something I disagree with", I think it's basically when somebody believes they see consent being manufactured (in the sense of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent ) for something that to them is clearly not true.dixiedean said:I always associated the term "gaslighting" to specifically refer to cases of domestic abuse.
It most certainly does exist in that context and is a useful and widespread term for some awful behaviours.
I have only come across it today in other situations. Not sure it serves any great purpose in these if it merely means "not in agreement with me."
That's still not a great fit for the original term, in which the point was to make the victim question their sanity, but language evolves.0 -
No doubt when you travel to anywhere you need to understand that countries health requirements but of course returning from them is free of restriction if you live in EnglandCarlottaVance said:Yay! FCO says I can go to Singapore!
Singapore says no.
As do many of the countries on the list.....
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-countries-and-territories-exempt-from-advice-against-all-but-essential-international-travel0 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/53194642?at_custom2=facebook_page&at_custom3=BBC+Sport&at_medium=custom7&at_custom4=87FF79A6-BD2C-11EA-BEEA-BB06FDA12A29&at_campaign=64&at_custom1=[post+type]&fbclid=IwAR0SXmbji4YJzz800Hw5R5tEvw10SXk5sPsJthBHX8qICMkw_1eQBZ9M6AE
I've voted for WIlkinson's drop goal. Watched that one in Australia, brilliant.
0 -
Vaccine production capability is the key point here. And - IIRC - the vast majority of vaccines are still made using hen's eggs, where small amounts are injected into eggs, where they replicate, and are then harvested.Nigelb said:
Can you point me to figures comparing UK vaccine manufacturing capacity with that based in the EU ? (I suspect not.)Philip_Thompson said:
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?TOPPING said:
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.RobD said:
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?nico67 said:
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 .RobD said:
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?Scott_xP said:
Production capacity is as important, if not more so, in delivering vaccines on a mass scale as the vaccine development itself.
As far as European vaccine efforts are concerned, there are a number.
Here's a recent list of the most advanced/promising vaccine programs:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/06/29/coronavirus-vaccine-update-june-29
I've listed the European based involvement below:
Reithera (Italy)
Merck (US) /Themis (Austria)
Pfizer (US)/Biontech (Germany)
CureVac (Germany)
Sanofi (France)/Translate (US)
Sanofi (France)/ GSK (UK)
Now, I could be wrong, but the UK's very strict animal welfare standards mean it's unlikely that we have much capacity. Simply, our chickens (and eggs) are more expensive than those where standards are lower.0 -
Those pubs used to be key in doing the 24 hour pub crawl in the old days. Them, plus late lock-ins, and "dens" to bridge the middle of pm hole.TOPPING said:
I remember several years ago I arranged to meet a client for a breakfast meeting in the City and he took me to a pub in Smithfields and there we sat at 7.30am supping pints...Richard_Nabavi said:Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.
Don't know why I'm telling you. Granny and eggs.1 -
FCO says you can return from Singapore without quarantine. Very different, but good news for British expats stuck there or transiting from Australia.CarlottaVance said:Yay! FCO says I can go to Singapore!
Singapore says no.
As do many of the countries on the list.....
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-countries-and-territories-exempt-from-advice-against-all-but-essential-international-travel0 -
You can't leave Australia any more, the last repatriation flight was about a month ago.Sandpit said:
FCO says you can return from Singapore without quarantine. Very different, but good news for British expats stuck there or transiting from Australia.CarlottaVance said:Yay! FCO says I can go to Singapore!
Singapore says no.
As do many of the countries on the list.....
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-countries-and-territories-exempt-from-advice-against-all-but-essential-international-travel0 -
You do have to be precise with it. It loses its power otherwise.dixiedean said:I always associated the term "gaslighting" to specifically refer to cases of domestic abuse.
It most certainly does exist in that context and is a useful and widespread term for some awful behaviours.
I have only come across it today in other situations. Not sure it serves any great purpose in these if it merely means "not in agreement with me."0 -
Did you ever go to the "bar" under Venus Videos in Soho - opened at 3am?kinabalu said:
Those pubs used to be key in doing the 24 hour pub crawl in the old days. Them, plus late lock-ins, and "dens" to bridge the middle of pm hole.TOPPING said:
I remember several years ago I arranged to meet a client for a breakfast meeting in the City and he took me to a pub in Smithfields and there we sat at 7.30am supping pints...Richard_Nabavi said:Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.
Don't know why I'm telling you. Granny and eggs.0 -
Chris Whitty
'We have to take risks at whatever we do and this seems a reasonable package of risks at this particular time at this particular pace, but none of us believe this is a risk free next step'1 -
-
Great. So was the Oval 2005. And lots of the others.Pulpstar said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/53194642?at_custom2=facebook_page&at_custom3=BBC+Sport&at_medium=custom7&at_custom4=87FF79A6-BD2C-11EA-BEEA-BB06FDA12A29&at_campaign=64&at_custom1=[post+type]&fbclid=IwAR0SXmbji4YJzz800Hw5R5tEvw10SXk5sPsJthBHX8qICMkw_1eQBZ9M6AE
I've voted for WIlkinson's drop goal. Watched that one in Australia, brilliant.
But it's Murray Wimbo 2013 for me.0
This discussion has been closed.