politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Only days away now from the Biden VP choice and it’ll be a hug
Options
Comments
-
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.0 -
I was predicted a C in my A-Level maths and I actually got an A. Poor kids.0
-
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.0 -
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.0 -
Check my other posts, one of the pivot points was recent, when the Saudi government started to post fake news releases saying the WTO had exonerated them when the opposite was true.Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.0 -
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.0 -
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.0 -
Ok I'll quote, and others can judge.humbugger said:
Just had another look at Conway's article. It is not at all clear that he's saying that.turbotubbs said:
Sorry - just went and read that. He does not say the real Covid Death toll is half the official figure. He says that the current rate (i.e how many die each day) is about half what it being reported. This is something that has been discussed ad infinitum here. PHE deaths in all settings are very misleading, the hospital deaths in England are less than 20 a day.humbugger said:Good afternoon all.
Those considering top keepers might care to consider Jimmy Binks. If his batting had been just a wee bit better he may well have played many times for England.
Ed Conway's column in the Times today is interesting. Amongst other things he seemed to be saying that the real Covid death toll in the UK is about half the official figure. It's well worth a read.
"Public Health England's count of deaths, which includes anyone who once tested positive for the disease, even if they recovered and were then run over by a bus. In reality, the death numbers in England are running at about half the official figure.'
This may be an interpretation, but to me this is entirely clear he is referring to current numbers ('are running at...'), not the total. I would suggest if he meant to challenge the 45,000 or so, he would have done explicitly.1 -
Yeah, running at implies what is happening now. Not a month or two ago.turbotubbs said:
Ok I'll quote, and others can judge.humbugger said:
Just had another look at Conway's article. It is not at all clear that he's saying that.turbotubbs said:
Sorry - just went and read that. He does not say the real Covid Death toll is half the official figure. He says that the current rate (i.e how many die each day) is about half what it being reported. This is something that has been discussed ad infinitum here. PHE deaths in all settings are very misleading, the hospital deaths in England are less than 20 a day.humbugger said:Good afternoon all.
Those considering top keepers might care to consider Jimmy Binks. If his batting had been just a wee bit better he may well have played many times for England.
Ed Conway's column in the Times today is interesting. Amongst other things he seemed to be saying that the real Covid death toll in the UK is about half the official figure. It's well worth a read.
"Public Health England's count of deaths, which includes anyone who once tested positive for the disease, even if they recovered and were then run over by a bus. In reality, the death numbers in England are running at about half the official figure.'
This may be an interpretation, but to me this is entirely clear he is referring to current numbers ('are running at...'), not the total. I would suggest if he meant to challenge the 45,000 or so, he would have done explicitly.1 -
It does *sound* as if he is talking about the ONS vs PHE methodology.turbotubbs said:
Ok I'll quote, and others can judge.humbugger said:
Just had another look at Conway's article. It is not at all clear that he's saying that.turbotubbs said:
Sorry - just went and read that. He does not say the real Covid Death toll is half the official figure. He says that the current rate (i.e how many die each day) is about half what it being reported. This is something that has been discussed ad infinitum here. PHE deaths in all settings are very misleading, the hospital deaths in England are less than 20 a day.humbugger said:Good afternoon all.
Those considering top keepers might care to consider Jimmy Binks. If his batting had been just a wee bit better he may well have played many times for England.
Ed Conway's column in the Times today is interesting. Amongst other things he seemed to be saying that the real Covid death toll in the UK is about half the official figure. It's well worth a read.
"Public Health England's count of deaths, which includes anyone who once tested positive for the disease, even if they recovered and were then run over by a bus. In reality, the death numbers in England are running at about half the official figure.'
This may be an interpretation, but to me this is entirely clear he is referring to current numbers ('are running at...'), not the total. I would suggest if he meant to challenge the 45,000 or so, he would have done explicitly.
0 -
But others such as BeIn and others have asked the PL to investigate the link between PIF and the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
BeIn paid around half a billion quid to the PL for the Middle East TV rights, if you genuinely think the PL would ignore them then you really are naive.0 -
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.0 -
-
Look. I understand why the Premier League might want to use the process to leverage Saudi Arabia into acting more favourably towards BeIN - but that is not the purpose of the O&D test!TheScreamingEagles said:
But others such as BeIn and others have asked the PL to investigate the link between PIF and the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
BeIn paid around half a billion quid to the PL for the Middle East TV rights, if you genuinely think the PL would ignore them then you really are naive.
The test only takes into account behavior that is an offence that has resulted in a conviction, or would be equivalent to an offence in this country whether or not there has been an actual conviction.
In this case the PL may be equating the WTO report to a conviction of an offence but the O&D test rules also have an exception for circumstances where there is an appeal against the conviction of an offence and it would not be reasonable to await its outcome, as is clearly the case here because the WTO appeal process is in limbo.
The O&D test is a test of directors, not any greater financial implications. The Premier League are required to simply evaluate “PIF” on the basis of their own rules. They clearly are not doing that!0 -
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.0 -
Stokesy you beautiful Englishman0
-
As I said, it's not at all clear.Malmesbury said:
It does *sound* as if he is talking about the ONS vs PHE methodology.turbotubbs said:
Ok I'll quote, and others can judge.humbugger said:
Just had another look at Conway's article. It is not at all clear that he's saying that.turbotubbs said:
Sorry - just went and read that. He does not say the real Covid Death toll is half the official figure. He says that the current rate (i.e how many die each day) is about half what it being reported. This is something that has been discussed ad infinitum here. PHE deaths in all settings are very misleading, the hospital deaths in England are less than 20 a day.humbugger said:Good afternoon all.
Those considering top keepers might care to consider Jimmy Binks. If his batting had been just a wee bit better he may well have played many times for England.
Ed Conway's column in the Times today is interesting. Amongst other things he seemed to be saying that the real Covid death toll in the UK is about half the official figure. It's well worth a read.
"Public Health England's count of deaths, which includes anyone who once tested positive for the disease, even if they recovered and were then run over by a bus. In reality, the death numbers in England are running at about half the official figure.'
This may be an interpretation, but to me this is entirely clear he is referring to current numbers ('are running at...'), not the total. I would suggest if he meant to challenge the 45,000 or so, he would have done explicitly.0 -
For the ones whose uni aspirations have just been stuffed up, yet are in the fortunate position of having parents who can afford to keep them sitting idle for a year, crap grades could ultimately be a blessing in disguise if they can do substantially better in resits. Courses this year will be a crock of online shit; by September 2021 there's a decent chance that we'll be back to something vaguely resembling normality.Gallowgate said:I was predicted a C in my A-Level maths and I actually got an A. Poor kids.
For the others, you and your shit A-levels are warmly welcomed to the worst jobs market for a hundred years.0 -
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.3 -
0
-
I seem to remember various sellers of Kodi set top box devices being charged with criminal offences. Kodi devices for people who don't know allow you to watch illegal streamed Premier League football matches amongst other things.Gallowgate said:
Look. I understand why the Premier League might want to use the process to leverage Saudi Arabia into acting more favourably towards BeIN - but that is not the purpose of the O&D test!TheScreamingEagles said:
But others such as BeIn and others have asked the PL to investigate the link between PIF and the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
BeIn paid around half a billion quid to the PL for the Middle East TV rights, if you genuinely think the PL would ignore them then you really are naive.
The test only takes into account behavior that is an offence that has resulted in a conviction, or would be equivalent to an offence in this country whether or not there has been an actual conviction.
In this case the PL may be equating the WTO report to a conviction of an offence but the O&D test rules also have an exception for circumstances where there is an appeal against the conviction of an offence and it would not be reasonable to await its outcome, as is clearly the case here because the WTO appeal process is in limbo.
The O&D test is a test of directors, not any greater financial implications. The Premier League are required to simply evaluate “PIF” on the basis of their own rules. They clearly are not doing that!
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/965028/Kodi-add-ons-movies-TV-shows-Kodi-Box-sellers-jail-sentence-piracy0 -
Yes it is.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.0 -
In which case “assurances” are not going to change anything and the PL should just reject them. I wonder why they aren’t...? Hmm..TheScreamingEagles said:
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.0 -
Have to agree to disagree then as to me its absolutely clear.humbugger said:
As I said, it's not at all clear.Malmesbury said:
It does *sound* as if he is talking about the ONS vs PHE methodology.turbotubbs said:
Ok I'll quote, and others can judge.humbugger said:
Just had another look at Conway's article. It is not at all clear that he's saying that.turbotubbs said:
Sorry - just went and read that. He does not say the real Covid Death toll is half the official figure. He says that the current rate (i.e how many die each day) is about half what it being reported. This is something that has been discussed ad infinitum here. PHE deaths in all settings are very misleading, the hospital deaths in England are less than 20 a day.humbugger said:Good afternoon all.
Those considering top keepers might care to consider Jimmy Binks. If his batting had been just a wee bit better he may well have played many times for England.
Ed Conway's column in the Times today is interesting. Amongst other things he seemed to be saying that the real Covid death toll in the UK is about half the official figure. It's well worth a read.
"Public Health England's count of deaths, which includes anyone who once tested positive for the disease, even if they recovered and were then run over by a bus. In reality, the death numbers in England are running at about half the official figure.'
This may be an interpretation, but to me this is entirely clear he is referring to current numbers ('are running at...'), not the total. I would suggest if he meant to challenge the 45,000 or so, he would have done explicitly.0 -
Ditto.turbotubbs said:
Have to agree to disagree then as to me its absolutely clear.humbugger said:
As I said, it's not at all clear.Malmesbury said:
It does *sound* as if he is talking about the ONS vs PHE methodology.turbotubbs said:
Ok I'll quote, and others can judge.humbugger said:
Just had another look at Conway's article. It is not at all clear that he's saying that.turbotubbs said:
Sorry - just went and read that. He does not say the real Covid Death toll is half the official figure. He says that the current rate (i.e how many die each day) is about half what it being reported. This is something that has been discussed ad infinitum here. PHE deaths in all settings are very misleading, the hospital deaths in England are less than 20 a day.humbugger said:Good afternoon all.
Those considering top keepers might care to consider Jimmy Binks. If his batting had been just a wee bit better he may well have played many times for England.
Ed Conway's column in the Times today is interesting. Amongst other things he seemed to be saying that the real Covid death toll in the UK is about half the official figure. It's well worth a read.
"Public Health England's count of deaths, which includes anyone who once tested positive for the disease, even if they recovered and were then run over by a bus. In reality, the death numbers in England are running at about half the official figure.'
This may be an interpretation, but to me this is entirely clear he is referring to current numbers ('are running at...'), not the total. I would suggest if he meant to challenge the 45,000 or so, he would have done explicitly.0 -
‘We cannot stop people’: 250,000 are expected at a South Dakota motorcycle rally
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/06/motorcycle-rally-coronavirus/
Health officials are still warning against even small gatherings, and states with relatively low spread of the coronavirus are ordering visitors from hot spots to self-quarantine.
But come Friday, about 250,000 people from across the country are still expected to start descending on a roughly 7,000-person community in South Dakota for one of the biggest motorcycle rallies in the world, a 10-day extravaganza so deeply rooted that Sturgis calls itself the City of Riders.
The mayor of Sturgis says there’s not much to do but encourage “personal responsibility,” set up sanitation stations and give out masks — though face coverings won’t be required....0 -
It's not even smart politics. It's like they're trying to ensure the virus is still a live issue in November.Nigelb said:Science led....
https://twitter.com/tomaskenn/status/1291745371069325315
I don't understand what the GOP are thinking. To act like Sweden and not lock down and let it take it's course with minimal interventions is one option. Or to lock down like we and most of Europe did until it's dealt with is another. But they locked down then let go of the lockdown while it was still live which is just madness, worst of both worlds.
Come November our schools are going to be open (probably) and we will be looking at economic recovery but they're going to be really struggling still.0 -
It isn’t actually. Have you read them?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it is.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.0 -
I’ve just read the O&D section in the PL rules and there’s no mention of utmost good faith so what are you talking about?Gallowgate said:
In which case “assurances” are not going to change anything and the PL should just reject them. I wonder why they aren’t...? Hmm..TheScreamingEagles said:
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.0 -
So I'm not the only one! Feel like I'm being gaslit (is that the phrase?)TheScreamingEagles said:
Ditto.turbotubbs said:
Have to agree to disagree then as to me its absolutely clear.humbugger said:
As I said, it's not at all clear.Malmesbury said:
It does *sound* as if he is talking about the ONS vs PHE methodology.turbotubbs said:
Ok I'll quote, and others can judge.humbugger said:
Just had another look at Conway's article. It is not at all clear that he's saying that.turbotubbs said:
Sorry - just went and read that. He does not say the real Covid Death toll is half the official figure. He says that the current rate (i.e how many die each day) is about half what it being reported. This is something that has been discussed ad infinitum here. PHE deaths in all settings are very misleading, the hospital deaths in England are less than 20 a day.humbugger said:Good afternoon all.
Those considering top keepers might care to consider Jimmy Binks. If his batting had been just a wee bit better he may well have played many times for England.
Ed Conway's column in the Times today is interesting. Amongst other things he seemed to be saying that the real Covid death toll in the UK is about half the official figure. It's well worth a read.
"Public Health England's count of deaths, which includes anyone who once tested positive for the disease, even if they recovered and were then run over by a bus. In reality, the death numbers in England are running at about half the official figure.'
This may be an interpretation, but to me this is entirely clear he is referring to current numbers ('are running at...'), not the total. I would suggest if he meant to challenge the 45,000 or so, he would have done explicitly.0 -
because there is still a chance they might fix the issue (piracy) that is blocking their takeoverGallowgate said:
In which case “assurances” are not going to change anything and the PL should just reject them. I wonder why they aren’t...? Hmm..TheScreamingEagles said:
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.1 -
Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.0 -
If their assurance was they'd shut down the piracy immediately then that might be accepted. If they shut it down and paid compensation it definitely would I suspect.Gallowgate said:
In which case “assurances” are not going to change anything and the PL should just reject them. I wonder why they aren’t...? Hmm..TheScreamingEagles said:
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.0 -
PIF has no control over Saudi governmental policy (or at least that’s what they’ll be saying) so what are they supposed to do?eek said:
because there is still a chance they might fix the issue (piracy) that is blocking their takeoverGallowgate said:
In which case “assurances” are not going to change anything and the PL should just reject them. I wonder why they aren’t...? Hmm..TheScreamingEagles said:
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.0 -
Saudi BeOUT boxes no longer function so the piracy has already been shut down.Philip_Thompson said:
If their assurance was they'd shut down the piracy immediately then that might be accepted. If they shut it down and paid compensation it definitely would I suspect.Gallowgate said:
In which case “assurances” are not going to change anything and the PL should just reject them. I wonder why they aren’t...? Hmm..TheScreamingEagles said:
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.0 -
The PIF is the Saudi sovereign wealth fund is it not?Gallowgate said:
PIF has no control over Saudi governmental policy (or at least that’s what they’ll be saying) so what are they supposed to do?eek said:
because there is still a chance they might fix the issue (piracy) that is blocking their takeoverGallowgate said:
In which case “assurances” are not going to change anything and the PL should just reject them. I wonder why they aren’t...? Hmm..TheScreamingEagles said:
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.
They can tell the Saudis that if they want this deal to go through they need to resolve the PLs concerns.0 -
PIF is legally independent of the Saudi government.Philip_Thompson said:
The PIF is the Saudi sovereign wealth fund is it not?Gallowgate said:
PIF has no control over Saudi governmental policy (or at least that’s what they’ll be saying) so what are they supposed to do?eek said:
because there is still a chance they might fix the issue (piracy) that is blocking their takeoverGallowgate said:
In which case “assurances” are not going to change anything and the PL should just reject them. I wonder why they aren’t...? Hmm..TheScreamingEagles said:
It is under the 'utmost good faith' position.Gallowgate said:
Being “linked to piracy” is not enough in the rules of the O&D test.Philip_Thompson said:
PIF is linked to piracy.Gallowgate said:
PIF does not engage in piracy. I noticed that you ignored my post explaining how the Premier League does not investigate higher up the ownership structure when it comes to Man City but does apparently when it comes to Newcastle United.Philip_Thompson said:
Because this case is more complicated than normal as normally there aren't any piracy issues to deal with. Why are you struggling to understand that?Gallowgate said:
My understanding is that they’ve been going back and forth for months and with the PL dragging their feet the entire process. The process normally takes 4 weeks - even with COVID-19 allowances it’s absolutely ridiculous.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because AIUI the PL asked the new ownership group for certain information and assurances, which haven't been received yet.Gallowgate said:
So if PIF are not suitable owners as per the PL rules, they should reject them. Why aren’t they rejecting them, other than to simply fillibuster and avoid an appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the piracy issue.Gallowgate said:
Why is the Premier League investigating who controls PIF, when I doubt they’ve done any such investigation into who controls Abu Dhabi United Group?TheScreamingEagles said:
PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, by definition it has links to the Saudi government.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you talking about? You’re doing the same as HYUFD, not me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're turning into HYUFD with your pigheaded inability to look at the facts and spin your own alternative facts.Gallowgate said:
Only if you apply the O&D test to the Saudi state and not PIF.
I’ve just explained above how that’s a higher standard than what is applied to Manchester City, who’s actual owner is not subject to the O&D test.
If the Saudi government wasn't behind the piracy of BeIN then the takeover gets approved, as I always said.
The higher standard you talk about is in fact the result of investigations to understand the link between the Saudi government and the Newcastle ownership group.
If it turns out that the Sheikh Mansour related parties and government are behind the piracy of the PL's product then I suspect the same approach would be taken with him.
The PL have to protect their product and the value of it.
The Saudi government is not buying Newcastle United.
That's why I said links and related parties.
Regardless, if PIF are not suitable owners, the Premier League should reject them so we can move on.
They are damaging one of their members, Newcastle United, by their dawdling.
Your City argument is fatuous as you've not shown that Mansour is engaged in piracy or something else that PL would object to.
They can tell the Saudis that if they want this deal to go through they need to resolve the PLs concerns.
The O&D test concerns illegal acts taken by directors themselves, not sovereign states who happen to own corporations.0 -
Imagine the bars in a town of 7,000 visited by 250,000...
https://twitter.com/DrPhillipsMD/status/12917090985689620480 -
Th either possibility is that, in the early stages of a increase in cases, it tends to spread among the young. And then pivots into the elderly population.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
See Florida...
So no celebrating yet.0 -
Has the Rice hype peaked a few days too early ?
Progressives alarmed by Rice's vast financial investments
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/07/progressives-alarmed-by-rices-vast-investments-3925070 -
The Chairman of PIF is His Royal Highness Mohammad bin Salman Al-SaudGallowgate said:
PIF is legally independent of the Saudi government.
The O&D test concerns illegal acts taken by directors themselves, not sovereign states who happen to own corporations.
Does he have any links to the Saudi government that engaged in piracy and quite recently banned and fined BeIn after the Saudi government fraudulently presented the WTO report as backing the Saudis?1 -
Or that the virus is not as debilitating as it was, out in Spain hospitalizations of cases remain low (at the moment) despite the large increase.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.0 -
I had hoped the death of Herman Cain might focus minds but alas not.Nigelb said:Imagine the bars in a town of 7,000 visited by 250,000...
https://twitter.com/DrPhillipsMD/status/12917090985689620480 -
Cases confirmed by positive test have been trickling steadily upwards for a month, yet still the triage stats remain flat and the hospital numbers keep declining. If the disease is behaving in the fashion that you suggest then it's taking rather a long time to find its way into the olds.Malmesbury said:
Th either possibility is that, in the early stages of a increase in cases, it tends to spread among the young. And then pivots into the elderly population.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
See Florida...
So no celebrating yet.
A possible explanation for this could also cover the excess deaths currently being seen in private residences: the Government messaging and wall-to-wall media coverage in the first phase of the pandemic was so devastatingly effective that most of the elderly are effectively continuing to self-isolate (and are then succumbing in unexpectedly large numbers to non-Covid related illnesses instead, because they are too frightened to seek help or don't want to burden the NHS.) Grandad is too nervous to socialise and thus dodges Covid, then gets killed off by those chest pains he elected not to call the ambulance for instead.0 -
Off thread.
The BBC is really dumbing down to the Nth degree. There is a report on its website ( wouldn't be surprised if it is a masked trailer of one of its future programmes) asking the question as to why Migrants (cf: illegal immigrants) are trying to cross the channel.
Does the BBC really think its readers are that thick?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-536995110 -
I can't help feeling that the Trump campaign isn't entirely on top of the challenge they face:
https://twitter.com/sfcpoll/status/1291774304607240192
0 -
Top reason: escape from France.squareroot2 said:Off thread.
The BBC is really dumbing down to the Nth degree. There is a report on its website ( wouldn't be surprised if it is a masked trailer of one of its future programmes) asking the question as to why Migrants (cf: illegal immigrants) are trying to cross the channel.
Does the BBC really think its readers are that thick?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-536995110 -
The PHE figures are not believable. They are saying that a large number of people are dying of COVID, un-diagnosed, despite a positive test.Black_Rook said:
Cases confirmed by positive test have been trickling steadily upwards for a month, yet still the triage stats remain flat and the hospital numbers keep declining. If the disease is behaving in the fashion that you suggest then it's taking rather a long time to find its way into the olds.Malmesbury said:
Th either possibility is that, in the early stages of a increase in cases, it tends to spread among the young. And then pivots into the elderly population.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
See Florida...
So no celebrating yet.
A possible explanation for this could also cover the excess deaths currently being seen in private residences: the Government messaging and wall-to-wall media coverage in the first phase of the pandemic was so devastatingly effective that most of the elderly are effectively continuing to self-isolate (and are then succumbing in unexpectedly large numbers to non-Covid related illnesses instead, because they are too frightened to seek help or don't want to burden the NHS.) Grandad is too nervous to socialise and thus dodges Covid, then gets killed off by those chest pains he elected not to call the ambulance for instead.
- Someone dies.
- The doctor who signs the death certificate knows that they tested positive for COVID previously.
- Yet the doctor doesn't put COVID on the death certificate.
The ONS numbers (anyone with COVID on the death certificate or other official paperwork) are much lower.0 -
It would be very nice to think so, because clearly if the virus were to become substantially less lethal then it would also become much easier for society to learn to live with, rather than having half the population paralyzed by fear and the other half at constant risk of being forced to sit at home by local lockdowns. But until there's good evidence that the Plague is losing its bite then I think I'll file that notion in the "too good to be true" drawer.nichomar said:
Or that the virus is not as debilitating as it was, out in Spain hospitalizations of cases remain low (at the moment) despite the large increase.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.0 -
I somehow don't think the bikers are going to be natural Biden voters, on the whole...TheScreamingEagles said:
I had hoped the death of Herman Cain might focus minds but alas not.Nigelb said:Imagine the bars in a town of 7,000 visited by 250,000...
https://twitter.com/DrPhillipsMD/status/12917090985689620480 -
There is nothing new there; nothing to cause a late change of mind from Biden. The only people who care will vote for Biden anyway. (Of course, we do not yet know where Biden's pin has landed.)Nigelb said:Has the Rice hype peaked a few days too early ?
Progressives alarmed by Rice's vast financial investments
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/07/progressives-alarmed-by-rices-vast-investments-3925070 -
To be fair, his team clearly understand the nature of their task.Richard_Nabavi said:I can't help feeling that the Trump campaign isn't entirely on top of the challenge they face:
https://twitter.com/sfcpoll/status/12917743046072401920 -
I'm quite amazed the PHE review is still ongoing. How long does it take to say "yes, we should put a 28 day limit on it".Malmesbury said:
The PHE figures are not believable. They are saying that a large number of people are dying of COVID, un-diagnosed, despite a positive test.Black_Rook said:
Cases confirmed by positive test have been trickling steadily upwards for a month, yet still the triage stats remain flat and the hospital numbers keep declining. If the disease is behaving in the fashion that you suggest then it's taking rather a long time to find its way into the olds.Malmesbury said:
Th either possibility is that, in the early stages of a increase in cases, it tends to spread among the young. And then pivots into the elderly population.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
See Florida...
So no celebrating yet.
A possible explanation for this could also cover the excess deaths currently being seen in private residences: the Government messaging and wall-to-wall media coverage in the first phase of the pandemic was so devastatingly effective that most of the elderly are effectively continuing to self-isolate (and are then succumbing in unexpectedly large numbers to non-Covid related illnesses instead, because they are too frightened to seek help or don't want to burden the NHS.) Grandad is too nervous to socialise and thus dodges Covid, then gets killed off by those chest pains he elected not to call the ambulance for instead.
- Someone dies.
- The doctor who signs the death certificate knows that they tested positive for COVID previously.
- Yet the doctor doesn't put COVID on the death certificate.
The ONS numbers (anyone with COVID on the death certificate or other official paperwork) are much lower.0 -
Something happened that wiped out my password so I could not log in, until I remembered which email account I used to set up my registration and so could reset the password.
Fixed now.0 -
Latest Ferguson/SAGE assessment.
1.5 million would have died without mitigation. Yes, that's the million word you read.
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/12917660157649551360 -
The bigger the problem, the harder the fix.RobD said:
I'm quite amazed the PHE review is still ongoing. How long does it take to say "yes, we should put a 28 day limit on it".Malmesbury said:
The PHE figures are not believable. They are saying that a large number of people are dying of COVID, un-diagnosed, despite a positive test.Black_Rook said:
Cases confirmed by positive test have been trickling steadily upwards for a month, yet still the triage stats remain flat and the hospital numbers keep declining. If the disease is behaving in the fashion that you suggest then it's taking rather a long time to find its way into the olds.Malmesbury said:
Th either possibility is that, in the early stages of a increase in cases, it tends to spread among the young. And then pivots into the elderly population.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
See Florida...
So no celebrating yet.
A possible explanation for this could also cover the excess deaths currently being seen in private residences: the Government messaging and wall-to-wall media coverage in the first phase of the pandemic was so devastatingly effective that most of the elderly are effectively continuing to self-isolate (and are then succumbing in unexpectedly large numbers to non-Covid related illnesses instead, because they are too frightened to seek help or don't want to burden the NHS.) Grandad is too nervous to socialise and thus dodges Covid, then gets killed off by those chest pains he elected not to call the ambulance for instead.
- Someone dies.
- The doctor who signs the death certificate knows that they tested positive for COVID previously.
- Yet the doctor doesn't put COVID on the death certificate.
The ONS numbers (anyone with COVID on the death certificate or other official paperwork) are much lower.
If you halve the numbers overnight, questions are going to be asked in parliament. Hate storms on twitter. Professor Piers Morgan will be on the case.
Much better to say "Our top men are working on it". And park the problem.
0 -
-
A solution that would make sense -RobD said:
I'm quite amazed the PHE review is still ongoing. How long does it take to say "yes, we should put a 28 day limit on it".Malmesbury said:
The PHE figures are not believable. They are saying that a large number of people are dying of COVID, un-diagnosed, despite a positive test.Black_Rook said:
Cases confirmed by positive test have been trickling steadily upwards for a month, yet still the triage stats remain flat and the hospital numbers keep declining. If the disease is behaving in the fashion that you suggest then it's taking rather a long time to find its way into the olds.Malmesbury said:
Th either possibility is that, in the early stages of a increase in cases, it tends to spread among the young. And then pivots into the elderly population.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
See Florida...
So no celebrating yet.
A possible explanation for this could also cover the excess deaths currently being seen in private residences: the Government messaging and wall-to-wall media coverage in the first phase of the pandemic was so devastatingly effective that most of the elderly are effectively continuing to self-isolate (and are then succumbing in unexpectedly large numbers to non-Covid related illnesses instead, because they are too frightened to seek help or don't want to burden the NHS.) Grandad is too nervous to socialise and thus dodges Covid, then gets killed off by those chest pains he elected not to call the ambulance for instead.
- Someone dies.
- The doctor who signs the death certificate knows that they tested positive for COVID previously.
- Yet the doctor doesn't put COVID on the death certificate.
The ONS numbers (anyone with COVID on the death certificate or other official paperwork) are much lower.
1) Someone dies, having been diagnosed with COVID19
2) If within 28 days, report it immediately.
3) If outside 28 days, park it.
4) In either case, when the death certificate is issued, change the status to match the death certificate and update the numbers.
In other words, in the longer term, the numbers would become the ONS numbers.0 -
And, despite the fact that the same people who want open borders typically also think that England is just about the biggest racist shithole on the planet, for the migrants it is the Promised Land.RobD said:
Top reason: escape from France.squareroot2 said:Off thread.
The BBC is really dumbing down to the Nth degree. There is a report on its website ( wouldn't be surprised if it is a masked trailer of one of its future programmes) asking the question as to why Migrants (cf: illegal immigrants) are trying to cross the channel.
Does the BBC really think its readers are that thick?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
This is unsurprising. Besides anything else, once they manage to get in then the likelihood is that they'll end up being granted permanent residency.0 -
So the 4% that aren't wearing the masks post on PB.RobD said:2 -
Is anybody even buying these bullshit numbers anymore?rottenborough said:Latest Ferguson/SAGE assessment.
1.5 million would have died without mitigation. Yes, that's the million word you read.
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/12917660157649551360 -
🍿🍿
Jeremy Corbyn accuses Labour officials of sabotaging election campaign
Exclusive: Former leader and allies say alleged diversion of funds in 2017 could be fraud
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/07/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-labour-officials-of-sabotaging-election-campaign0 -
Face nappies, please.TheScreamingEagles said:
So the 4% that aren't wearing the masks post on PB.RobD said:0 -
I've never felt more oppressed.RobD said:
Face nappies, please.TheScreamingEagles said:
So the 4% that aren't wearing the masks post on PB.RobD said:
It's like living in Stalin's CCCP.0 -
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:0 -
US Dem VP betting -- has someone just backed Gretchen Whitmer?
Possibly on the back of this report she is still in the running. I guess the contrast with her and Trump's handling of the pandemic is the attraction. I can't see it myself but she was into 15 when I started typing though now back to 25 in a very thin market.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/gov-gretchen-whitmer-remains-biden-s-list-running-mate-pick-n1236049
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has drifted but remains favourite.
Kamala Harris: 2.16
Susan Rice: 2.86
Tammy Duckworth: 23
Val Demings: 23
Gretchen Whitmer: 25
Elizabeth Warren: 28
Michelle Obama: 30
Karen Bass: 42
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 65
Stacey Abrams: 80
Hillary Clinton: 110
Gina Raimondo: 120
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 170
Barack Obama: 320
0 -
I see they are productively spending their time indulging feel good narratives.TheScreamingEagles said:🍿🍿
Jeremy Corbyn accuses Labour officials of sabotaging election campaign
Exclusive: Former leader and allies say alleged diversion of funds in 2017 could be fraud
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/07/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-labour-officials-of-sabotaging-election-campaign
Given Labour’s narrow loss in 2017, they argued: “It’s not impossible that Jeremy Corbyn might now be in his third year as a Labour prime minister were it not for the unauthorised, unilateral action taken by a handful of senior party officials.
I wonder if St Jeremy ever stops to ask himself if he is so obviously great and wonderful, why it is that so many people even in his own party apparently took efforts against him.0 -
All those Muslims in Preston going to the pub caused the latest lockdown.
'Mixing in pubs' led to Preston's rise in coronavirus cases
People mixing with other households in pubs, as well as in their homes, has led to a need for increased coronavirus restrictions in Preston, the area’s director of public health has said.
Speaking at a media briefing after the announcement the city had been designated an “area of intervention” on Friday, director of Public Health for Lancashire Sakthi Karunanithi said almost half of the cases reported were among people aged 30 and younger.
A spike in cases in the city was affecting people from south Asian and white ethnic backgrounds – particularly those living in poor socio-economic conditions, he said.
He said:
I want to pay extra attention to indoor spaces, particularly pubs, where high numbers of people are mixing between households.
That’s a worrying pattern that we really must avoid.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-live-updates-government-set-187309610 -
They couldn't force that even if they wanted to, don't be silly.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:0 -
Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.0
-
Perhaps US naval supremacy is not under the immediate threat we imagined...
https://twitter.com/xinwenfan/status/12917661962582753281 -
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/lawsuit-alleges-black-lives-matter-protesters-are-being-priced-out-of-civil-rights-cost-of-protective-clothing-too-high/
A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle alleges that protesters in the Black Lives Matter movement are being priced out of their civil rights by the prohibitive costs of defending themselves against police violence.
The five plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the purchase of helmets, gas masks, protective clothing, goggles, gloves, boots, umbrellas and other gear they say are needed to fend off police pepper spray, less-lethal projectiles and other crowd-dispersal tools has impinged on their civil right to peacefully protest.0 -
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3093
"Behavioural fatigue: a flawed idea central to a flawed pandemic response" by Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the BMJ.
"Ironically, the concept of behavioural fatigue is said to be rooted in the evidence.9 But what evidence? If there’s no evidence for it then how did the government follow the science? The behavioural subcommittee advising SAGE and the government’s behavioural nudge unit deny introducing this concept.10 Perhaps David Halpern, the head of the nudge unit, or Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, should explain why behavioural fatigue came to be such common parlance and so influential?
Behavioural interventions can succeed only if the rest of the system operates optimally. But recent experiences from Leicester and Sandwell tell us that the promised world class systems of testing and tracing are bucket class. [...]
Nor does divergence in national strategies rebuild public trust that was destroyed not by behavioural fatigue but by Dominic Cummings, England’s most senior government adviser.15 Scotland wants all four UK nations to follow an elimination strategy, aiming for “zero covid.” Northern Ireland has already committed, but England, persistent in its flawed response, is content for the virus to hover around, to hope it doesn’t overwhelm health services, and to play “whack-a-mole” with local outbreaks."0 -
At least they aren't blaming those Jews.kle4 said:
I see they are productively spending their time indulging feel good narratives.TheScreamingEagles said:🍿🍿
Jeremy Corbyn accuses Labour officials of sabotaging election campaign
Exclusive: Former leader and allies say alleged diversion of funds in 2017 could be fraud
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/07/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-labour-officials-of-sabotaging-election-campaign
Given Labour’s narrow loss in 2017, they argued: “It’s not impossible that Jeremy Corbyn might now be in his third year as a Labour prime minister were it not for the unauthorised, unilateral action taken by a handful of senior party officials.
I wonder if St Jeremy ever stops to ask himself if he is so obviously great and wonderful, why it is that so many people even in his own party apparently took efforts against him.
Yet.0 -
This reinforces my view that the people of Sedgefield (my home constituency) made the wrong decision, not for any ownership related decision, but for choosing a Newcastle supporter.Gallowgate said:Good to see the new Tory North East MPs can see the wood for the trees.
https://twitter.com/cousinmortimer/status/1291755050193354752?s=210 -
I wouldn't put it past them to legislate for it though.kle4 said:
They couldn't force that even if they wanted to, don't be silly.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:0 -
As far as I can gather the theory goes if he'd managed to eke out a win in 2017 it would have been heaven on earth, whereas not managing to win (because of demonic Blairites) meant the evil forces were able to regroup and undermine from behind the scenes in collaboration with Boris 'Beelzebub in the flesh' Johnson, and it's not the Jezziah's fault he could not overcome that.RochdalePioneers said:Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.
0 -
Jeremy Corbyn would not intentionally do that. He'd just hang around people who will openly do so, but not see anything.TheScreamingEagles said:
At least they aren't blaming those Jews.kle4 said:
I see they are productively spending their time indulging feel good narratives.TheScreamingEagles said:🍿🍿
Jeremy Corbyn accuses Labour officials of sabotaging election campaign
Exclusive: Former leader and allies say alleged diversion of funds in 2017 could be fraud
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/07/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-labour-officials-of-sabotaging-election-campaign
Given Labour’s narrow loss in 2017, they argued: “It’s not impossible that Jeremy Corbyn might now be in his third year as a Labour prime minister were it not for the unauthorised, unilateral action taken by a handful of senior party officials.
I wonder if St Jeremy ever stops to ask himself if he is so obviously great and wonderful, why it is that so many people even in his own party apparently took efforts against him.
Yet.0 -
Because it would cause a massive political headache for PHE management who would revise down data to less than half of what it is currently being declared at.RobD said:
I'm quite amazed the PHE review is still ongoing. How long does it take to say "yes, we should put a 28 day limit on it".Malmesbury said:
The PHE figures are not believable. They are saying that a large number of people are dying of COVID, un-diagnosed, despite a positive test.Black_Rook said:
Cases confirmed by positive test have been trickling steadily upwards for a month, yet still the triage stats remain flat and the hospital numbers keep declining. If the disease is behaving in the fashion that you suggest then it's taking rather a long time to find its way into the olds.Malmesbury said:
Th either possibility is that, in the early stages of a increase in cases, it tends to spread among the young. And then pivots into the elderly population.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
See Florida...
So no celebrating yet.
A possible explanation for this could also cover the excess deaths currently being seen in private residences: the Government messaging and wall-to-wall media coverage in the first phase of the pandemic was so devastatingly effective that most of the elderly are effectively continuing to self-isolate (and are then succumbing in unexpectedly large numbers to non-Covid related illnesses instead, because they are too frightened to seek help or don't want to burden the NHS.) Grandad is too nervous to socialise and thus dodges Covid, then gets killed off by those chest pains he elected not to call the ambulance for instead.
- Someone dies.
- The doctor who signs the death certificate knows that they tested positive for COVID previously.
- Yet the doctor doesn't put COVID on the death certificate.
The ONS numbers (anyone with COVID on the death certificate or other official paperwork) are much lower.0 -
Despite the supposed "Leicester hotspot" we have gone from inpatient numbers in the mid forties 4 weeks ago to 17 now. 2 are on ICU, and I don't think any deaths for a week. If case numbers had truly gone up in multigenerational households then we would expect to see the opposite trend.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.0 -
I can confirm around 100% compliance on the tube today.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:0 -
Here's the ONS page on it.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/7august2020
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”0 -
Went for a blood test - very strict compliance. 100% and many with gloves as well so that was re-assuring.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:
I agree mandatory face coverings outdoor would be debatable - the evidence of outdoor transmission doesn't support that. I admit I wear a mask in places like the High Street as there are a lot of people about.
As far as wearing them in shops is concerned, I thought it was a legal requirement. Clearly, the scale of respiratory issues such as asthma is considerable in my part of London and worthy of further research or it could just be people don't wear masks because they don't want to and they know it is a law which is unenforceable.
I have yet to see anyone be challenged in any shop - I've yet to see anyone refused service because they aren't wearing a mask - I suppose the last thing some company wants is a viral video as we've seen from the US of someone kicking up a fuss because they are challenged by shop staff for not wearing a mask.
It could just be that's not how the British work.1 -
Quite amazing. Imagine the scandal if the situation was reversed, and they were massively under-reporting.MaxPB said:
Because it would cause a massive political headache for PHE management who would revise down data to less than half of what it is currently being declared at.RobD said:
I'm quite amazed the PHE review is still ongoing. How long does it take to say "yes, we should put a 28 day limit on it".Malmesbury said:
The PHE figures are not believable. They are saying that a large number of people are dying of COVID, un-diagnosed, despite a positive test.Black_Rook said:
Cases confirmed by positive test have been trickling steadily upwards for a month, yet still the triage stats remain flat and the hospital numbers keep declining. If the disease is behaving in the fashion that you suggest then it's taking rather a long time to find its way into the olds.Malmesbury said:
Th either possibility is that, in the early stages of a increase in cases, it tends to spread among the young. And then pivots into the elderly population.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
See Florida...
So no celebrating yet.
A possible explanation for this could also cover the excess deaths currently being seen in private residences: the Government messaging and wall-to-wall media coverage in the first phase of the pandemic was so devastatingly effective that most of the elderly are effectively continuing to self-isolate (and are then succumbing in unexpectedly large numbers to non-Covid related illnesses instead, because they are too frightened to seek help or don't want to burden the NHS.) Grandad is too nervous to socialise and thus dodges Covid, then gets killed off by those chest pains he elected not to call the ambulance for instead.
- Someone dies.
- The doctor who signs the death certificate knows that they tested positive for COVID previously.
- Yet the doctor doesn't put COVID on the death certificate.
The ONS numbers (anyone with COVID on the death certificate or other official paperwork) are much lower.1 -
1. Poor families in crap housingTheScreamingEagles said:All those Muslims in Preston going to the pub caused the latest lockdown.
'Mixing in pubs' led to Preston's rise in coronavirus cases
People mixing with other households in pubs, as well as in their homes, has led to a need for increased coronavirus restrictions in Preston, the area’s director of public health has said.
Speaking at a media briefing after the announcement the city had been designated an “area of intervention” on Friday, director of Public Health for Lancashire Sakthi Karunanithi said almost half of the cases reported were among people aged 30 and younger.
A spike in cases in the city was affecting people from south Asian and white ethnic backgrounds – particularly those living in poor socio-economic conditions, he said.
He said:
I want to pay extra attention to indoor spaces, particularly pubs, where high numbers of people are mixing between households.
That’s a worrying pattern that we really must avoid.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-live-updates-government-set-18730961
2. Dipstick behaviour in pubs
Can't do much about 1. but use restrictions and wait for the cases to drop. Example of restriction: shut the pubs. Sturgeon probably acted correctly over Aberdeen.0 -
Xi Jinping sends shock waves with his 2035 manifesto
https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/China-up-close/Xi-Jinping-sends-shock-waves-with-his-2035-manifesto
A coded news release signals the president's intent to be 'leader for life'0 -
That being the case, is it possible that *NONE* of the outbreaks that people are currently fretting about - Leicester, Blackburn, Oldham, Preston and so on - actually exists? That is, are tiny clusters of positive tests being swooped upon by public health officials, who are then finding significant numbers of asymptomatic cases which they might find in much of the rest of the country if they were motivated to look?Foxy said:
Despite the supposed "Leicester hotspot" we have gone from inpatient numbers in the mid forties 4 weeks ago to 17 now. 2 are on ICU, and I don't think any deaths for a week. If case numbers had truly gone up in multigenerational households then we would expect to see the opposite trend.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.
Beyond that, if there really are such large numbers of asymptomatic cases in proportion to the total, then is it at all possible that @nichomar could be correct in his suggestion about the new outbreak in Spain, i.e. that the coronavirus might be becoming less potent?0 -
There again it could be just the age profile which is much lower at the momentBlack_Rook said:
It would be very nice to think so, because clearly if the virus were to become substantially less lethal then it would also become much easier for society to learn to live with, rather than having half the population paralyzed by fear and the other half at constant risk of being forced to sit at home by local lockdowns. But until there's good evidence that the Plague is losing its bite then I think I'll file that notion in the "too good to be true" drawer.nichomar said:
Or that the virus is not as debilitating as it was, out in Spain hospitalizations of cases remain low (at the moment) despite the large increase.Black_Rook said:Meanwhile, in better news, the number of Covid hospital patients continues to decline at a steady rate of about 12% per week. If this progress continues then they should be down below 1,000 by next Thursday.
No sign from either this number nor the 111/999 data of the increase in confirmed cases feeding through into the healthcare system. This suggests that the theory that the rise in cases is merely a consequence of more testing, rather than greater prevalence of the virus in the community, is correct.0 -
It was rather lower than that in the supermarket I visited, FWIW.MaxPB said:
I can confirm around 100% compliance on the tube today.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:0 -
Apt for a pub league.
Nicola Sturgeon takes aim at Aberdeen players after match called off
Game at St Johnstone off after players test positive for Covid
Squad members visited bar in city centre last weekend
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/aug/07/nicola-sturgeon-takes-aim-at-aberdeen-players-after-match-called-off-covid-st-johnstone0 -
No way of knowing whether this is true, but on the face of it the guy sounds a credible witness and there are some corroborative indications:
Dozens of bags of fireworks were stored in the same hangar as thousands of tonnes of ammonium nitrate at Beirut’s port and may have been a decisive factor in igniting the explosive chemical compound that fuelled Tuesday’s huge explosion, a former port worker and other sources have told the Guardian.
...
In addition, the hangar housed a quantity of fireworks, Shehadi said, which customs had confiscated in about 2009-10 and which he said he had personally seen delivered on a forklift. “There were 30 to 40 nylon bags of fireworks inside warehouse 12,” he said.
“They were on the left-hand side when you entered the door. I used to complain about this. It wasn’t safe. There was also humidity there. This was a disaster waiting to happen."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/07/beirut-explosion-former-port-worker-says-fireworks-stored-in-hangar0 -
Well I remain unconvinced by that judging by the shops and supermarkets here frankly. It might be true if you asked have you ever worn a mask.RobD said:0 -
Since they will not be allowing appeals, I do hope if this is true they are ready to be sued.TheScreamingEagles said:Paging @ydoethur and other PB teachers.
Nearly 40% of A-level result predictions to be downgraded in England
Exclusive: Assessments likely to be adjusted down before students receive results – analysis
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/07/a-level-result-predictions-to-be-downgraded-england
It was a bad system, run by incompetent and lazy people, moderated by a useless and inappropriate algorithm rather than any evidence, and based on the overwhelming arrogance of the powers that be.
They buggered up exam reform, they buggered up this.
Their sole job is to maintain public confidence in exams. Time for them all to be sacked and the money put towards something useful.0 -
Fish and chip shop around 50% but it's in and order, then wait outside for 10 minutes while they deep fry the virus. Sainsbury's, I could believe 96 per cent. Bus a bit lower; almost everyone coming out of the station is wearing a mask (most take them off on reaching the street).Pagan2 said:
Well I remain unconvinced by that judging by the shops and supermarkets here frankly. It might be true if you asked have you ever worn a mask.RobD said:0 -
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neckRobD said:
Here's the ONS page on it.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/7august2020
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”0 -
If a third hadn't bothered at all how would you get to 96%?Pagan2 said:
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neckRobD said:
Here's the ONS page on it.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/7august2020
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”0 -
I wonder how much of that is an artefact of overpredicting for the sake of motivation?ydoethur said:
Since they will not be allowing appeals, I do hope if this is true they are ready to be sued.TheScreamingEagles said:Paging @ydoethur and other PB teachers.
Nearly 40% of A-level result predictions to be downgraded in England
Exclusive: Assessments likely to be adjusted down before students receive results – analysis
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/07/a-level-result-predictions-to-be-downgraded-england
It was a bad system, run by incompetent and lazy people, moderated by a useless and inappropriate algorithm rather than any evidence, and based on the overwhelming arrogance of the powers that be.
They buggered up exam reform, they buggered up this.
Their sole job is to maintain public confidence in exams. Time for them all to be sacked and the money put towards something useful.0 -
Maybe they did what I did and just put the mask back in their pocket. As to 96% frankl;y don't believe it for a moment. The sampling or something is obvioously flawed. Maybe it could be as simple as those more minded to wear a mask are also the type of folk to fill in ons surveysRobD said:
If a third hadn't bothered at all how would you get to 96%?Pagan2 said:
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neckRobD said:
Here's the ONS page on it.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/7august2020
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”0 -
I mean this is an ONS survey, not some voodoo poll in a newspaper.Pagan2 said:
Maybe they did what I did and just put the mask back in their pocket. As to 96% frankl;y don't believe it for a moment. The sampling or something is obvioously flawed. Maybe it could be as simple as those more minded to wear a mask are also the type of folk to fill in ons surveysRobD said:
If a third hadn't bothered at all how would you get to 96%?Pagan2 said:
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neckRobD said:
Here's the ONS page on it.Black_Rook said:
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.RobD said:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/7august2020
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”0
This discussion has been closed.