If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
An NHS spokesman said: ‘Given the likely phasing of vaccine supply from the manufacturers, most Covid vaccination for high risk people is likely to take place between January and Easter, so extra vaccinators are being recruited and trained for that period, and volunteers will have the opportunity to help.’
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
All countries tend to have the equivalent, the Americans abuse it though.
Its one part of the Royal Prerogative that is rarely used in this country, most recently for reducing the sentence of Steven Gallant who risked his life confronting the London Bridge terrorist. A rather more worthy pardon than what lame duck Yank Presidents get up to.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
"You are in a virtual queue Sorry for the wait, we are currently using a virtual queue due to exceptional demand. We will get you onto the site as soon as possible.
An NHS spokesman said: ‘Given the likely phasing of vaccine supply from the manufacturers, most Covid vaccination for high risk people is likely to take place between January and Easter, so extra vaccinators are being recruited and trained for that period, and volunteers will have the opportunity to help.’
That sound rather snails pace, if it is going to take until Easter to just do the real oldies and those with serious conditions.
No that's next to no time all things considered. That is practically warp speed.
Winter sucks anyway, if we can have the country open and without major restrictions by Easter then next year will be a very good year.
Plus since by a long shot the biggest spread of the virus comes from care homes and hospitals vaccinating them will immediately slash R. Given that the elderly and vulnerable (and care homes especially) are the largest source of hospitalisations it will immediately reduce the threat to the NHS.
Pareto's Law applies here to our favour, the first phases of vaccination will provide 80% of the reward from just 20% of the population being vaccinated.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
It just seems odd when, given all the checks and balances put in place elsewhere with admirable foresight, the founders apparently left that one completely open to be greater than that of many King's.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
It just seems odd when, given all the checks and balances put in place elsewhere with admirable foresight, the founders apparently left that one completely open to be greater than that of many King's.
Particularly given there is no extra check or suspension of the power during transition - even if you lost!
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
All countries tend to have the equivalent, the Americans abuse it though.
Its one part of the Royal Prerogative that is rarely used in this country, most recently for reducing the sentence of Steven Gallant who risked his life confronting the London Bridge terrorist. A rather more worthy pardon than what lame duck Yank Presidents get up to.
My gut is "if you're out on day release and risk your life to stop a terrorist incident, then yes, allowing your bail hearing to be moved forward a few months seems very reasonable."
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
An NHS spokesman said: ‘Given the likely phasing of vaccine supply from the manufacturers, most Covid vaccination for high risk people is likely to take place between January and Easter, so extra vaccinators are being recruited and trained for that period, and volunteers will have the opportunity to help.’
An NHS spokesman said: ‘Given the likely phasing of vaccine supply from the manufacturers, most Covid vaccination for high risk people is likely to take place between January and Easter, so extra vaccinators are being recruited and trained for that period, and volunteers will have the opportunity to help.’
That sound rather snails pace, if it is going to take until Easter to just do the real oldies and those with serious conditions.
No that's next to no time all things considered. That is practically warp speed.
Winter sucks anyway, if we can have the country open and without major restrictions by Easter then next year will be a very good year.
Plus since by a long shot the biggest spread of the virus comes from care homes and hospitals vaccinating them will immediately slash R. Given that the elderly and vulnerable (and care homes especially) are the largest source of hospitalisations it will immediately reduce the threat to the NHS.
Pareto's Law applies here to our favour, the first phases of vaccination will provide 80% of the reward from just 20% of the population being vaccinated.
I like that: 80% of the effect of vaccination can be achieved by vaccinating 20% of the public.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
All countries tend to have the equivalent, the Americans abuse it though.
Its one part of the Royal Prerogative that is rarely used in this country, most recently for reducing the sentence of Steven Gallant who risked his life confronting the London Bridge terrorist. A rather more worthy pardon than what lame duck Yank Presidents get up to.
My gut is "if you're out on day release and risk your life to stop a terrorist incident, then yes, allowing your bail hearing to be moved forward a few months seems very reasonable."
It would have been a very interesting question and debate if he had not already served a lot of what by his own account was a justifiably long sentence.
Probably not as much as you'd think. Trump would enjoy the power he had to deliver it, the abasement of the other he could demand, more than the money, I suspect, which would be a way of keeping score.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
All countries tend to have the equivalent, the Americans abuse it though.
Its one part of the Royal Prerogative that is rarely used in this country, most recently for reducing the sentence of Steven Gallant who risked his life confronting the London Bridge terrorist. A rather more worthy pardon than what lame duck Yank Presidents get up to.
My gut is "if you're out on day release and risk your life to stop a terrorist incident, then yes, allowing your bail hearing to be moved forward a few months seems very reasonable."
It would have been a very interesting question and debate if he had not already served a lot of what by his own account was a justifiably long sentence.
He wouldn't have been on day release if he hadn't though.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
And it has been a power that has sometimes been of great utility to the republic: some of its earliest uses were to pardon those involved in early anti-taxation revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a way of preventing resentment and everyone agreeing “no hard feelings” going forward once the insurrection was over.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
Very long books aren't my cup of tea. About 300 pages is okay.
Just finished The Evening and the Morning (Follett) - 817 pages. It's mostly conversation with little descriptive writing so one flies through it in a blur of down-market idleness. Quite interesting about the Dark Ages though, and like all Follett's books has an interesting villain who gives the heroes a run for their money.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
And it has been a power that has sometimes been of great utility to the republic: some of its earliest uses were to pardon those involved in early anti-taxation revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a way of preventing resentment and everyone agreeing “no hard feelings” going forward once the insurrection was over.
This isn't the 18th 19th Century though. The US Constitution, so advanced back then, needs modernising. No chance. It is a Holy Text. Just an excuse to reward loyal, corrupt cronies who don't spill the beans.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
And it has been a power that has sometimes been of great utility to the republic: some of its earliest uses were to pardon those involved in early anti-taxation revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a way of preventing resentment and everyone agreeing “no hard feelings” going forward once the insurrection was over.
This isn't the 18th 19th Century though. The US Constitution, so advanced back then, needs modernising. No chance. It is a Holy Text. Just an excuse to reward loyal, corrupt cronies who don't spill the beans.
The biggest problem with the US system is that election losers like Trump (and even those who's successor has been elected like Bill Clinton) maintain their powers for months with the unfettered right to abuse them. And since they're on their way out people put up with it thinking "it is what it is, Presidents do their on the way out" and shrug rather than hold to account people abusing their office.
Without getting nationalistic our system is far superior. Hold the election, count the votes, declare the results and winner gets declared the new Prime Minister - all typically within 24 hours of the polls closing. No window of opportunity for abuse between the election and leaving office.
The resignation honours list is the closest thing we get and nothing like pardons.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
And it has been a power that has sometimes been of great utility to the republic: some of its earliest uses were to pardon those involved in early anti-taxation revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a way of preventing resentment and everyone agreeing “no hard feelings” going forward once the insurrection was over.
This isn't the 18th 19th Century though. The US Constitution, so advanced back then, needs modernising. No chance. It is a Holy Text. Just an excuse to reward loyal, corrupt cronies who don't spill the beans.
The biggest problem with the US system is that election losers like Trump (and even those who's successor has been elected like Bill Clinton) maintain their powers for months with the unfettered right to abuse them. And since they're on their way out people put up with it thinking "it is what it is, Presidents do their on the way out" and shrug rather than hold to account people abusing their office.
Without getting nationalistic our system is far superior. Hold the election, count the votes, declare the results and winner gets declared the new Prime Minister - all typically within 24 hours of the polls closing. No window of opportunity for abuse between the election and leaving office.
The resignation honours list is the closest thing we get and nothing like pardons.
Our system is superior in certain respects, the US *timing* of elections mandated by 'constitution' rather than simple law gives less scope for any would be dictator though.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
Yes, that was my point, I'm surprised they wanted their head of state to have that level of power, at least without putting in a lot of details about how it should be used, its limitations and so on. No one's perfect, but they were plenty detailed elsewhere about things that rarely come up. If it's going to be done, outlining some more principles on its use would seem in character for people all about checks and balances. That wouldn't sacrifice its potential for good, which is the whole point of pardons. The system as a whole has surely evolved and developed in plenty of ways, so 'it was like this for monarchs in the 18th century is one bizarre defence of status quo!
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
And it has been a power that has sometimes been of great utility to the republic: some of its earliest uses were to pardon those involved in early anti-taxation revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a way of preventing resentment and everyone agreeing “no hard feelings” going forward once the insurrection was over.
This isn't the 18th 19th Century though. The US Constitution, so advanced back then, needs modernising. No chance. It is a Holy Text. Just an excuse to reward loyal, corrupt cronies who don't spill the beans.
The biggest problem with the US system is that election losers like Trump (and even those who's successor has been elected like Bill Clinton) maintain their powers for months with the unfettered right to abuse them. And since they're on their way out people put up with it thinking "it is what it is, Presidents do their on the way out" and shrug rather than hold to account people abusing their office.
Without getting nationalistic our system is far superior. Hold the election, count the votes, declare the results and winner gets declared the new Prime Minister - all typically within 24 hours of the polls closing. No window of opportunity for abuse between the election and leaving office.
The resignation honours list is the closest thing we get and nothing like pardons.
Yes. Remember seeing Jon Stewart on the Daily Show when Brown was ousted (And he hung around for a long time by our standards, quite rightly, too). General amazement he just went out the door and Cameron came in with no mighty kerfuffle and public performance. For the US it made sense when it could take the new guy weeks or even months to travel to DC. It doesn't now.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
Has it been properly tested?
Bit of a rush job to be honest, but having seen the alternative, I am game!
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
Yes, that was my point, I'm surprised they wanted their head of state to have that level of power, at least without putting in a lot of details about how it should be used, its limitations and so on. No one's perfect, but they were plenty detailed elsewhere about things that rarely come up.
Actually they weren't that detailed generally. Their constitution is remarkably simple and readable in relatively simple English measured in just a few pages.
Not like the hundreds of pages modern constitutions tend to have.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
And it has been a power that has sometimes been of great utility to the republic: some of its earliest uses were to pardon those involved in early anti-taxation revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a way of preventing resentment and everyone agreeing “no hard feelings” going forward once the insurrection was over.
This isn't the 18th 19th Century though. The US Constitution, so advanced back then, needs modernising. No chance. It is a Holy Text. Just an excuse to reward loyal, corrupt cronies who don't spill the beans.
The biggest problem with the US system is that election losers like Trump (and even those who's successor has been elected like Bill Clinton) maintain their powers for months with the unfettered right to abuse them. And since they're on their way out people put up with it thinking "it is what it is, Presidents do their on the way out" and shrug rather than hold to account people abusing their office.
Without getting nationalistic our system is far superior. Hold the election, count the votes, declare the results and winner gets declared the new Prime Minister - all typically within 24 hours of the polls closing. No window of opportunity for abuse between the election and leaving office.
The resignation honours list is the closest thing we get and nothing like pardons.
Yes. Remember seeing Jon Stewart on the Daily Show when Brown was ousted (And he hung around for a long time by our standards, quite rightly, too). General amazement he just went out the door and Cameron came in with no mighty kerfuffle and public performance. For the US it made sense when it could take the new guy weeks or even months to travel to DC. It doesn't now.
I can see the benefits, particularly while legal processes of elections are still so complex, and they have so many different ones taking place that you probably want months to prepare transitions for ready for the new President too. Different structures, different approach, not inherently unreasonable.
But I don't know what rules, if any, exist to prevent mischief from someone who cares nothing about convention. It's weird because we rely so much on convention, and maybe that makes it actually harder to defy them, since there's not as many cast iron actual rules to fall back on, whereas if you have to regularly fight things out on their precise legality and constitutionality, conventions are more easily discarded if you just don't care?
Of course they've argued about confirming justices in an election year, then the sides took opposite positions 4 years later on that, so whether there should be rules about various actions in that lame duck period is probably intensely argued.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
And it has been a power that has sometimes been of great utility to the republic: some of its earliest uses were to pardon those involved in early anti-taxation revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a way of preventing resentment and everyone agreeing “no hard feelings” going forward once the insurrection was over.
This isn't the 18th 19th Century though. The US Constitution, so advanced back then, needs modernising. No chance. It is a Holy Text. Just an excuse to reward loyal, corrupt cronies who don't spill the beans.
The biggest problem with the US system is that election losers like Trump (and even those who's successor has been elected like Bill Clinton) maintain their powers for months with the unfettered right to abuse them. And since they're on their way out people put up with it thinking "it is what it is, Presidents do their on the way out" and shrug rather than hold to account people abusing their office.
Without getting nationalistic our system is far superior. Hold the election, count the votes, declare the results and winner gets declared the new Prime Minister - all typically within 24 hours of the polls closing. No window of opportunity for abuse between the election and leaving office.
The resignation honours list is the closest thing we get and nothing like pardons.
Yes. Remember seeing Jon Stewart on the Daily Show when Brown was ousted (And he hung around for a long time by our standards, quite rightly, too). General amazement he just went out the door and Cameron came in with no mighty kerfuffle and public performance. For the US it made sense when it could take the new guy weeks or even months to travel to DC. It doesn't now.
It used to be worse, the original gap was four months with the election start of November and inauguration in March. The twentieth amendment reduced the gap but still left a big gap - that dates back to 1933 so automobiles and trains already existed by then.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
Yes, that was my point, I'm surprised they wanted their head of state to have that level of power, at least without putting in a lot of details about how it should be used, its limitations and so on. No one's perfect, but they were plenty detailed elsewhere about things that rarely come up.
Actually they weren't that detailed generally. Their constitution is remarkably simple and readable in relatively simple English measured in just a few pages.
Not like the hundreds of pages modern constitutions tend to have.
Too much detail can be a hindrance of course (as I tell people when they come to me with 12 page terms of refererence specifying things that don't require such detail, at least not there, and could be dealt with in 2). But it would only take a few paragraphs on pardons of they wanted to expand on article 2.
It would be pretty fun if Trump tried to pardon himself for potential crimes, and that question not having been tested according to wiki, the SC including those justices he appointed said that was not constitutional. The look on his face would warm us all through a dark winter.
If a criminal bribes the President for a pardon - and the President bribes the criminal for his pre-existing crime and for the bribe as well - then I wonder whether the Justice Department can even do anything about it?
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
Presidential pardons seem like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
Totally agreed. What is the justification for being able to pardon a convicted criminal on your way out the door?
Governors can do it too of course, at least in some states (or commute death sentences as well I think). It just seems unwise without checks as it is too open to abuse, and the presidential use seems very open to it.
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
Well, it’s something the British monarch can do, and back in the 18th century did on their own instigation, rather than under ministerial advice as today. Therefore the Founding Fathers thought the President, who is essentially an 18th century British monarch with the lifetime hereditary tenure filed off, should be able to do.
Yes, that was my point, I'm surprised they wanted their head of state to have that level of power, at least without putting in a lot of details about how it should be used, its limitations and so on. No one's perfect, but they were plenty detailed elsewhere about things that rarely come up. If it's going to be done, outlining some more principles on its use would seem in character for people all about checks and balances. That wouldn't sacrifice its potential for good, which is the whole point of pardons.
I think they assumed that having to submit to the electorate every four years, with the threat of Congressional impeachment if things got really bad between elections, would be sufficient. After all, even the power of the courts to strike down legislation and executive acts as unconstitutional does not appear in the actual document, and only came about because the courts pointed out that someone has to make those calls otherwise what’s the point of having a constitution in the first place.
But all constitutions have their strengths and flaws: the strength of the American one is that the “checks and balances” do for the most part have teeth and have, so far, stopped any would-be tyrants from going past the “would-be” part. I’d say a major flaw of the British constitution is the distinct lack of such strong checks and balances: we have seen that convention and “gentleman’s agreements” just don’t cut it with modern administrations determined to get their way no matter the cost.
Having lived in the US for a decade, and the UK for over five before that, I have come to the conclusion that a parliamentary system is superior to the strict separation of powers American/Enlightenment system, but it really needs to be a parliamentary system with strong embedded checks on the executive and legislature.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
Has it been properly tested?
Bit of a rush job to be honest, but having seen the alternative, I am game!
Hopefully we will all grow great big luxurious boobs, for remaining faithful to God, like the Book of Job.
Actually I’m not sure Job got great big luxurious boobs, but if you don’t ask you don’t get.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
Has it been properly tested?
Bit of a rush job to be honest, but having seen the alternative, I am game!
Hopefully we will all grow great big luxurious boobs, for remaining faithful to God, like the Book of Job.
Actually I’m not sure Job got great big luxurious boobs, but if you don’t ask you don’t get.
I’m off to say my prayers.
Of course he did - where did you think the term 'boob job' came from?
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
Has it been properly tested?
Bit of a rush job to be honest, but having seen the alternative, I am game!
Hopefully we will all grow great big luxurious boobs, for remaining faithful to God, like the Book of Job.
Actually I’m not sure Job got great big luxurious boobs, but if you don’t ask you don’t get.
Not just chat software, chat software will limited userbase...
The company, which had about 12.5 million users as of late March, has had difficulty making inroads against Microsoft Teams, a similar product that the tech giant unveiled in 2016 and now has more than 100 million users.
Not just chat software, chat software will limited userbase...
The company, which had about 12.5 million users as of late March, has had difficulty making inroads against Microsoft Teams, a similar product that the tech giant unveiled in 2016 and now has more than 100 million users.
As a user of both, I much prefer Slack. Although I have had Slack for coming on five years now, compared to a year for Teams.
Not just chat software, chat software will limited userbase...
The company, which had about 12.5 million users as of late March, has had difficulty making inroads against Microsoft Teams, a similar product that the tech giant unveiled in 2016 and now has more than 100 million users.
As a user of both, I much prefer Slack. Although I have had Slack for coming on five years now, compared to a year for Teams.
Slack is fine, I use it, but there so many other options and the barrier to entry for a messaging clients isn't so high you need a DeepMinds type team to build one. I actually.presumed they had a much larger user base.
Not just chat software, chat software will limited userbase...
The company, which had about 12.5 million users as of late March, has had difficulty making inroads against Microsoft Teams, a similar product that the tech giant unveiled in 2016 and now has more than 100 million users.
As a user of both, I much prefer Slack. Although I have had Slack for coming on five years now, compared to a year for Teams.
Slack is fine, I use it, but there so many other options and the barrier to entry for a messaging clients isn't so high you need a DeepMinds type team to build one. I actually.presumed they had a much larger user base.
My take is this. Slack was, I think, very popular with start-ups, small companies, and developer teams. Microsoft Teams was a latecomer, had a high installation base but not user base, largely because it came free from MS whether you asked for it or not.
Fast forward to the pandemic and the explosion in remote working and suddenly there are lots of companies looking for products and oh look, they've already got one they'd not been using, MS Teams. (Aiui Microsoft has also been furiously working to improve it since then.)
"You are in a virtual queue Sorry for the wait, we are currently using a virtual queue due to exceptional demand. We will get you onto the site as soon as possible.
Use of virtual queues is standard for large ecommerce sites these days via a CDN. In this case Debenhams' site is hosted by Amazon AWS (cloud). The site -- https://www.debenhams.com/ -- is accessible now, perhaps because most people have long since gone to bed. (Your quoting the queue subdomain which redirects to a 404 "not found" page suggests Debenhams had never bothered to test its implementation!)
It is a shame Debenhams has gone bust, and that its rescue was scuppered by the downfall of Arcadia. In a normal year I'd have bought most of my Christmas from there. Tomorrow (well, later today now!) the shop will doubtless be rammed so I'd rather steer clear; no point catching Covid-19 the day the vaccine is approved. The funny thing is the last time I went, in spring or summer, Debenhams seemed to be reasonably busy. Perhaps if it could have been kept ticking over till next summer, it might have recovered but you could probably say that for any of the shops we have lost.
"You are in a virtual queue Sorry for the wait, we are currently using a virtual queue due to exceptional demand. We will get you onto the site as soon as possible.
Use of virtual queues is standard for large ecommerce sites these days via a CDN. In this case Debenhams' site is hosted by Amazon AWS (cloud). The site -- https://www.debenhams.com/ -- is accessible now, perhaps because most people have long since gone to bed. (Your quoting the queue subdomain which redirects to a 404 "not found" page suggests Debenhams had never bothered to test its implementation!)
It is a shame Debenhams has gone bust, and that its rescue was scuppered by the downfall of Arcadia. In a normal year I'd have bought most of my Christmas from there. Tomorrow (well, later today now!) the shop will doubtless be rammed so I'd rather steer clear; no point catching Covid-19 the day the vaccine is approved. The funny thing is the last time I went, in spring or summer, Debenhams seemed to be reasonably busy. Perhaps if it could have been kept ticking over till next summer, it might have recovered but you could probably say that for any of the shops we have lost.
Thanks for the info. I used to visit the one in Birmingham about 3 or 4 times a year.
Gives a whole new meaning to ‘the Winchester re-run.’
Although a Winchester ‘97 result is probably what he’d get even if the military and the Supreme Court allowed him to do it. Not all his supporters are nutcases.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
No such thing as delayed gratification for the World Beating UK lads.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
And a lot less exceptionalism. In this context, it’s particularly bad tate.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
I'm all in favour of the vaccine, but there's a phrase which we use in pharmacy. 'You can have ir quick or you can have it right!'
I’m a little surprised this hasn’t seem a bit more attention.
McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/business/mckinsey-purdue-oxycontin-opioids.html Court filings reveal consultants’ talk of a records purge during the opioid crisis, and shed new light on sales advice given to members of the billionaire Sackler family and their drug company, Purdue Pharma...
... Documents released last week in a federal bankruptcy court in New York show that the adviser was McKinsey & Company, the world’s most prestigious consulting firm. The 160 pages include emails and slides revealing new details about McKinsey’s advice to members the Sackler family, Purdue’s billionaire owners, and the firm’s now notorious plan to “turbocharge” OxyContin sales at a time when opioid abuse had already killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
In a 2017 presentation, according to the records, which were filed in court on behalf of multiple state attorneys general, McKinsey laid out several options to shore up sales. One was to give Purdue’s distributors a rebate for every OxyContin overdose attributable to pills they sold.
The presentation estimated how many customers of companies including CVS and Anthem might overdose. It projected that in 2019, for example, 2,484 CVS customers would either have an overdose or develop an opioid use disorder. A rebate of $14,810 per “event” meant that Purdue would pay CVS $36.8 million that year.
Oh nice Mr Barnier you have given the British too much, your too generous.
Hmmm - there is no deal that will satisfy the ERG or, more crucially for Tory fortunes, Nigel Farage, unless it involves the total capitulation of the EU. And that is not going to happen. Given where things are now, No Deal is the only hope the Tories have of not leaking votes to the right. It is the loons pulling all the strings in Westminster. Without their support Johnson is absolutely done for.
It would be pretty fun if Trump tried to pardon himself for potential crimes, and that question not having been tested according to wiki, the SC including those justices he appointed said that was not constitutional. The look on his face would warm us all through a dark winter.
Especially since in attempting to pardon himself, he would be admitting the crime and therefore unable to plead not guilty at the trial.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
I'm all in favour of the vaccine, but there's a phrase which we use in pharmacy. 'You can have ir quick or you can have it right!'
And Good Morning folks!
My thought at the moment is that the "official" almost seemed to think that the work of "deploying" the vaccine would be achieved by a simple act of regulatory approval. I think approving it will be the easy bit (for Pfizer, anyway).
Not just chat software, chat software will limited userbase...
The company, which had about 12.5 million users as of late March, has had difficulty making inroads against Microsoft Teams, a similar product that the tech giant unveiled in 2016 and now has more than 100 million users.
As a user of both, I much prefer Slack. Although I have had Slack for coming on five years now, compared to a year for Teams.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
I'm all in favour of the vaccine, but there's a phrase which we use in pharmacy. 'You can have ir quick or you can have it right!'
And Good Morning folks!
Interesting. I tried that line on my wife, and it didn't go down well.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
I'm all in favour of the vaccine, but there's a phrase which we use in pharmacy. 'You can have ir quick or you can have it right!'
And Good Morning folks!
My thought at the moment is that the "official" almost seemed to think that the work of "deploying" the vaccine would be achieved by a simple act of regulatory approval. I think approving it will be the easy bit (for Pfizer, anyway).
Quite. How, for a start, is the vaccine to be transported? Although someone on here did suggest, a few weeks ago that HMG had been quietly buying up refrigeration equipment.
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there anyway to stop tweets loading when browsing on an iPad? On my iPhone embedded tweets show as a link, which load fine. On my iPad images of tweets load, which is again causing the page to crash repeatedly.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
I'm all in favour of the vaccine, but there's a phrase which we use in pharmacy. 'You can have ir quick or you can have it right!'
And Good Morning folks!
My thought at the moment is that the "official" almost seemed to think that the work of "deploying" the vaccine would be achieved by a simple act of regulatory approval. I think approving it will be the easy bit (for Pfizer, anyway).
Quite. How, for a start, is the vaccine to be transported? Although someone on here did suggest, a few weeks ago that HMG had been quietly buying up refrigeration equipment.
Guernsey, for example, already has the fridges installed and has done “dummy runs” from the U.K. to ensure that the cold chain has been maintained.
I could save them some money here, after looking at a couple of Youtube car reviews. Charging at home is fine, provided you've got off-street parking. Charging at service stations and the like is a mess of incompatible plugs and badly-designed phone apps, so if you want to drive more than a hundred miles in any direction, go no greener than a hybrid. Or buy a Tesla, who have invested in nationwide fast chargers.
I could save them some money here, after looking at a couple of Youtube car reviews. Charging at home is fine, provided you've got off-street parking. Charging at service stations and the like is a mess of incompatible plugs and badly-designed phone apps, so if you want to drive more than a hundred miles in any direction, go no greener than a hybrid. Or buy a Tesla, who have invested in nationwide fast chargers.
I should have been GQ's motoring correspondent.
Lol. My brother bought a Tesla but it’s still a hassle for longer journeys. Last Xmas he turned up in his son’s beat up second hand car, because it was easier.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
I'm all in favour of the vaccine, but there's a phrase which we use in pharmacy. 'You can have ir quick or you can have it right!'
And Good Morning folks!
My thought at the moment is that the "official" almost seemed to think that the work of "deploying" the vaccine would be achieved by a simple act of regulatory approval. I think approving it will be the easy bit (for Pfizer, anyway).
Quite. How, for a start, is the vaccine to be transported? Although someone on here did suggest, a few weeks ago that HMG had been quietly buying up refrigeration equipment.
There seems to be this idea that (one of) the vaccine(s) requires completely novel transportation and that it will be incredibly difficult to distribute around the world.
Utter horseshit.
Sure, for long term transportation, the vaccine needs to be kept package at dry ice temperatures (like the varicella based vaccines), but once it is opened and refrigerated, it will store for another five days.
We pack stuff with dry ice all the time. I get Amazon Fresh deliveries of fronzen peas packaged with dry ice in LA. (It's cheaper to dump freezer stuff on your doorstep in 35 degree heat with dry ice than to wait for someone to open the door.)
Dry ice is simply not that cold.
Pfizer has chartered United Airlines planes to fly the vaccine packaged in dry ice from their Chicago manufacturing plant to Brussels and then across Europe. Their storage containers are good for 15 days.
Fifteen days is a lifetime. The vaccine will be in distribution centres and will have been injected by day 5. If there was limited demand, it would be one thing. But there's not. There's not going to be vaccines hanging around degrading "just in case someone wants it".
Boris loves World War analogies. To encourage people to stay sensible between now and vaccination, maybe he should try something like this:
“In the First World War, they signed the Armistice at 5.45 in the morning, but it didn’t come into effect until 11 o’clock.
They kept firing the guns until that moment. Soldiers died in that time.
With a vaccine now deployed, we have effectively signed the Armistice in this war against the virus. But it will take several weeks, maybe a handful of months, to come into effect. This can’t be helped.
This time, though, you don’t have to go over the top between the signing and it coming into effect. In fact, we’re doing everything we can to discourage that, but we’re aware some people will be determined to do so. Be aware, though, that you’ll be dragging other people into No Mans Land with you, under the guns which will soon be silenced, when you do, if so.”
I could save them some money here, after looking at a couple of Youtube car reviews. Charging at home is fine, provided you've got off-street parking. Charging at service stations and the like is a mess of incompatible plugs and badly-designed phone apps, so if you want to drive more than a hundred miles in any direction, go no greener than a hybrid. Or buy a Tesla, who have invested in nationwide fast chargers.
I should have been GQ's motoring correspondent.
Lol. My brother bought a Tesla but it’s still a hassle for longer journeys. Last Xmas he turned up in his son’s beat up second hand car, because it was easier.
Of course.
There are tens of thousands of petrol stations, but only hundreds of fast chargers.
In three years time, those numbers will look very different.
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
I'm all in favour of the vaccine, but there's a phrase which we use in pharmacy. 'You can have ir quick or you can have it right!'
And Good Morning folks!
My thought at the moment is that the "official" almost seemed to think that the work of "deploying" the vaccine would be achieved by a simple act of regulatory approval. I think approving it will be the easy bit (for Pfizer, anyway).
Quite. How, for a start, is the vaccine to be transported? Although someone on here did suggest, a few weeks ago that HMG had been quietly buying up refrigeration equipment.
There seems to be this idea that (one of) the vaccine(s) requires completely novel transportation and that it will be incredibly difficult to distribute around the world.
Utter horseshit.
Sure, for long term transportation, the vaccine needs to be kept package at dry ice temperatures (like the varicella based vaccines), but once it is opened and refrigerated, it will store for another five days.
We pack stuff with dry ice all the time. I get Amazon Fresh deliveries of fronzen peas packaged with dry ice in LA. (It's cheaper to dump freezer stuff on your doorstep in 35 degree heat with dry ice than to wait for someone to open the door.)
Dry ice is simply not that cold.
Pfizer has chartered United Airlines planes to fly the vaccine packaged in dry ice from their Chicago manufacturing plant to Brussels and then across Europe. Their storage containers are good for 15 days.
Fifteen days is a lifetime. The vaccine will be in distribution centres and will have been injected by day 5. If there was limited demand, it would be one thing. But there's not. There's not going to be vaccines hanging around degrading "just in case someone wants it".
Never suggested it'd be 'novel' transportation, simply specialist., if it'll last at 'normal' vaccine temperatures for five days shouldn't be too much of a problem, but it does require teams to be put together,
A Whitehall source claimed the UK would have a “head start”, saying: “The MHRA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine, when it comes, will be a big moment not just for the UK but for the world.” The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
I'm all in favour of the vaccine, but there's a phrase which we use in pharmacy. 'You can have ir quick or you can have it right!'
And Good Morning folks!
My thought at the moment is that the "official" almost seemed to think that the work of "deploying" the vaccine would be achieved by a simple act of regulatory approval. I think approving it will be the easy bit (for Pfizer, anyway).
Quite. How, for a start, is the vaccine to be transported? Although someone on here did suggest, a few weeks ago that HMG had been quietly buying up refrigeration equipment.
There seems to be this idea that (one of) the vaccine(s) requires completely novel transportation and that it will be incredibly difficult to distribute around the world.
Utter horseshit.
Sure, for long term transportation, the vaccine needs to be kept package at dry ice temperatures (like the varicella based vaccines), but once it is opened and refrigerated, it will store for another five days.
We pack stuff with dry ice all the time. I get Amazon Fresh deliveries of fronzen peas packaged with dry ice in LA. (It's cheaper to dump freezer stuff on your doorstep in 35 degree heat with dry ice than to wait for someone to open the door.)
Dry ice is simply not that cold.
Pfizer has chartered United Airlines planes to fly the vaccine packaged in dry ice from their Chicago manufacturing plant to Brussels and then across Europe. Their storage containers are good for 15 days.
Fifteen days is a lifetime. The vaccine will be in distribution centres and will have been injected by day 5. If there was limited demand, it would be one thing. But there's not. There's not going to be vaccines hanging around degrading "just in case someone wants it".
Never suggested it'd be 'novel' transportation, simply specialist., if it'll last at 'normal' vaccine temperatures for five days shouldn't be too much of a problem, but it does require teams to be put together,
And no doubt they've been planning this from the moment the storage requirements became clear.
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there anyway to stop tweets loading when browsing on an iPad? On my iPhone embedded tweets show as a link, which load fine. On my iPad images of tweets load, which is again causing the page to crash repeatedly.
First world problems.
If your browser permits it, install the uBlock Origin add on.
Then find your way into its dashboard and set up a filter that blocks platform.twitter.com
Comments
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1333909947042701316
(Still, great news nevertheless)
Its got the makings of the "perfect crime".
An NHS spokesman said: ‘Given the likely phasing of vaccine supply from the manufacturers, most Covid vaccination for high risk people is likely to take place between January and Easter, so extra vaccinators are being recruited and trained for that period, and volunteers will have the opportunity to help.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9007429/Regulator-poised-ahead-coronavirus-vaccine-emergency-use-DAYS.html
That sound rather snails pace, if it is going to take until Easter to just do the real oldies and those with serious conditions.
Its one part of the Royal Prerogative that is rarely used in this country, most recently for reducing the sentence of Steven Gallant who risked his life confronting the London Bridge terrorist. A rather more worthy pardon than what lame duck Yank Presidents get up to.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/murderer-day-release-who-foiled-22863391
"You are in a virtual queue
Sorry for the wait, we are currently using a virtual queue due to exceptional demand. We will get you onto the site as soon as possible.
Thank you for your patience"
https://queue.debenhams.com
Winter sucks anyway, if we can have the country open and without major restrictions by Easter then next year will be a very good year.
Plus since by a long shot the biggest spread of the virus comes from care homes and hospitals vaccinating them will immediately slash R. Given that the elderly and vulnerable (and care homes especially) are the largest source of hospitalisations it will immediately reduce the threat to the NHS.
Pareto's Law applies here to our favour, the first phases of vaccination will provide 80% of the reward from just 20% of the population being vaccinated.
My gut is "if you're out on day release and risk your life to stop a terrorist incident, then yes, allowing your bail hearing to be moved forward a few months seems very reasonable."
It just cannot be right that people working for you can feel the risk of committing crimes is lessened as if you like them enough they can pardon you (depending on state/federal etc).
And it has been a power that has sometimes been of great utility to the republic: some of its earliest uses were to pardon those involved in early anti-taxation revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a way of preventing resentment and everyone agreeing “no hard feelings” going forward once the insurrection was over.
Just an excuse to reward loyal, corrupt cronies who don't spill the beans.
Without getting nationalistic our system is far superior. Hold the election, count the votes, declare the results and winner gets declared the new Prime Minister - all typically within 24 hours of the polls closing. No window of opportunity for abuse between the election and leaving office.
The resignation honours list is the closest thing we get and nothing like pardons.
General amazement he just went out the door and Cameron came in with no mighty kerfuffle and public performance.
For the US it made sense when it could take the new guy weeks or even months to travel to DC. It doesn't now.
Not like the hundreds of pages modern constitutions tend to have.
But I don't know what rules, if any, exist to prevent mischief from someone who cares nothing about convention. It's weird because we rely so much on convention, and maybe that makes it actually harder to defy them, since there's not as many cast iron actual rules to fall back on, whereas if you have to regularly fight things out on their precise legality and constitutionality, conventions are more easily discarded if you just don't care?
Of course they've argued about confirming justices in an election year, then the sides took opposite positions 4 years later on that, so whether there should be rules about various actions in that lame duck period is probably intensely argued.
But all constitutions have their strengths and flaws: the strength of the American one is that the “checks and balances” do for the most part have teeth and have, so far, stopped any would-be tyrants from going past the “would-be” part. I’d say a major flaw of the British constitution is the distinct lack of such strong checks and balances: we have seen that convention and “gentleman’s agreements” just don’t cut it with modern administrations determined to get their way no matter the cost.
Having lived in the US for a decade, and the UK for over five before that, I have come to the conclusion that a parliamentary system is superior to the strict separation of powers American/Enlightenment system, but it really needs to be a parliamentary system with strong embedded checks on the executive and legislature.
Actually I’m not sure Job got great big luxurious boobs, but if you don’t ask you don’t get.
I’m off to say my prayers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55154326
We back in 1999?
The company, which had about 12.5 million users as of late March, has had difficulty making inroads against Microsoft Teams, a similar product that the tech giant unveiled in 2016 and now has more than 100 million users.
I know because I read about it on AltaVista.
Fast forward to the pandemic and the explosion in remote working and suddenly there are lots of companies looking for products and oh look, they've already got one they'd not been using, MS Teams. (Aiui Microsoft has also been furiously working to improve it since then.)
It is a shame Debenhams has gone bust, and that its rescue was scuppered by the downfall of Arcadia. In a normal year I'd have bought most of my Christmas from there. Tomorrow (well, later today now!) the shop will doubtless be rammed so I'd rather steer clear; no point catching Covid-19 the day the vaccine is approved. The funny thing is the last time I went, in spring or summer, Debenhams seemed to be reasonably busy. Perhaps if it could have been kept ticking over till next summer, it might have recovered but you could probably say that for any of the shops we have lost.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/01/eu-states-tell-barnier-they-want-to-see-brexit-deal-before-it-is-closed
Oh nice Mr Barnier you have given the British too much, your too generous.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1333919015174098950
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333975991518187521
https://twitter.com/BrendanKeefe/status/1333884246277189633?s=20
Although a Winchester ‘97 result is probably what he’d get even if the military and the Supreme Court allowed him to do it. Not all his supporters are nutcases.
The official claimed: “From our perspective, us making provision to be able to authorise a vaccine ahead of the EMA was definitely the right call. It means we will have a three-week head start on every other country in Europe in terms of deploying this vaccine … Germany might have a better diagnostics industry than we do but when it comes to deploying vaccines we are No 1.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-likely-to-be-first-western-country-to-license-a-covid-vaccine
Hmm. As Elvis once said, and I think rightly:
"A little less conversation, a little more action, please"
In this context, it’s particularly bad tate.
And Good Morning folks!
McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/business/mckinsey-purdue-oxycontin-opioids.html
Court filings reveal consultants’ talk of a records purge during the opioid crisis, and shed new light on sales advice given to members of the billionaire Sackler family and their drug company, Purdue Pharma...
... Documents released last week in a federal bankruptcy court in New York show that the adviser was McKinsey & Company, the world’s most prestigious consulting firm. The 160 pages include emails and slides revealing new details about McKinsey’s advice to members the Sackler family, Purdue’s billionaire owners, and the firm’s now notorious plan to “turbocharge” OxyContin sales at a time when opioid abuse had already killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
In a 2017 presentation, according to the records, which were filed in court on behalf of multiple state attorneys general, McKinsey laid out several options to shore up sales. One was to give Purdue’s distributors a rebate for every OxyContin overdose attributable to pills they sold.
The presentation estimated how many customers of companies including CVS and Anthem might overdose. It projected that in 2019, for example, 2,484 CVS customers would either have an overdose or develop an opioid use disorder. A rebate of $14,810 per “event” meant that Purdue would pay CVS $36.8 million that year.
search function, and Msn swiftly followed.
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1334032008402657280?s=20
First world problems.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-examine-electric-vehicle-charging-sector
I could save them some money here, after looking at a couple of Youtube car reviews. Charging at home is fine, provided you've got off-street parking. Charging at service stations and the like is a mess of incompatible plugs and badly-designed phone apps, so if you want to drive more than a hundred miles in any direction, go no greener than a hybrid. Or buy a Tesla, who have invested in nationwide fast chargers.
I should have been GQ's motoring correspondent.
Brilliant.
Utter horseshit.
Sure, for long term transportation, the vaccine needs to be kept package at dry ice temperatures (like the varicella based vaccines), but once it is opened and refrigerated, it will store for another five days.
We pack stuff with dry ice all the time. I get Amazon Fresh deliveries of fronzen peas packaged with dry ice in LA. (It's cheaper to dump freezer stuff on your doorstep in 35 degree heat with dry ice than to wait for someone to open the door.)
Dry ice is simply not that cold.
Pfizer has chartered United Airlines planes to fly the vaccine packaged in dry ice from their Chicago manufacturing plant to Brussels and then across Europe. Their storage containers are good for 15 days.
Fifteen days is a lifetime. The vaccine will be in distribution centres and will have been injected by day 5. If there was limited demand, it would be one thing. But there's not. There's not going to be vaccines hanging around degrading "just in case someone wants it".
A US vaccine approved by the UK before the USA. Not America First.
Repudiate Trump and lose his voters.
But repudiate democracy and reality and you lose a different bunch.
If Biden avoids offending anyone, and Trump continues to wage war in (and on) the Republican Party, then 2022 could be a bloodbath.
“In the First World War, they signed the Armistice at 5.45 in the morning, but it didn’t come into effect until 11 o’clock.
They kept firing the guns until that moment. Soldiers died in that time.
With a vaccine now deployed, we have effectively signed the Armistice in this war against the virus. But it will take several weeks, maybe a handful of months, to come into effect. This can’t be helped.
This time, though, you don’t have to go over the top between the signing and it coming into effect. In fact, we’re doing everything we can to discourage that, but we’re aware some people will be determined to do so. Be aware, though, that you’ll be dragging other people into No Mans Land with you, under the guns which will soon be silenced, when you do, if so.”
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1334034855437475841?s=21
There are tens of thousands of petrol stations, but only hundreds of fast chargers.
In three years time, those numbers will look very different.
The article about how terrible life is for us pedants in the UK. The peasants, they're doing OK. But us pedants, we're being fucked.
Then find your way into its dashboard and set up a filter that blocks platform.twitter.com
Example...