It should be the aim of all Governments to ensure that line does not plateau at 10%. And certainly not to see it starting to inch up again.
"Find - and persuade" needs to be the challenge from mid-year onwards.
Won't it plateau relatively close to that as the vaccines aren't 100% effective and some people will be ineligible for whatever reason let alone those who refuse it?
But even at 10% society should be safe to unlock completely. It isn't possible to eradicate death and at ~10% the virus isn't going to find enough superspreaders to spark exponential growth of hospitalisations to overwhelm healthcare.
I note Israel has now opened up it's vaccination program to a very simply defined group, all over 16s.
My only question about this is the 'other renewable' category. I assume this includes the likes of Drax, not too far from me, who now co-fire coal and biomass (maybe some biomass-only generation now, not sure). Better than coal alone, but the life cycle analysis for biomass is not always that great - most of Drax's is shipped in too, I believe, rather than domestic. Not necessarily a whole lot better than a very efficient combined cycle natural gas plant, for example.
Four of the units at Drax are biomass only. You have to pretend that the CO2 coming out of the stack doesn't exist. According to the rules, it was emitted in the USA where the wood came from.
The primary forests cut down to provide it?
The word 'sustainable' has a lot to answer for when it comes to CO2.
Yes, technically the trees were cut down and replacements were planted. No, the habitat lost will never return.
They were also shipped on a transoceanic voyage by oil-burning boat and lorry, rather than grown close to where would be used.
My only question about this is the 'other renewable' category. I assume this includes the likes of Drax, not too far from me, who now co-fire coal and biomass (maybe some biomass-only generation now, not sure). Better than coal alone, but the life cycle analysis for biomass is not always that great - most of Drax's is shipped in too, I believe, rather than domestic. Not necessarily a whole lot better than a very efficient combined cycle natural gas plant, for example.
Four of the units at Drax are biomass only. You have to pretend that the CO2 coming out of the stack doesn't exist. According to the rules, it was emitted in the USA where the wood came from.
That, on the face of it, is a much better approach.
Still be interesting to see a life cycle full analysis though - when I was looking at this eight or so years back, intensive fertiliser use (often needed to maximise growth) had a pretty big carbon footprint itself.
So on what basis did Crown Office claim that the above paragraph breached a contempt of court order? I regret to say that that question was not answered by the Lord Advocate yesterday when addressing Parliament.
Put aside the absurdity that the entire redacted statement is already available to anyone who wants to read it and the only reasonable conclusion is that the purpose of this redaction is to stop the committee from hearing evidence that the First Minister lied by excluding that evidence so that there is no evidence.
I can see no other interpretation.
This is such a complex story and it is easy to understand why the majority do not comprehend what is going on.
I am not a Scot but have become fascinated by every twist and turn.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
One of the key paragraphs removed from Mr Salmond's statement is as follows:
"The evidence from Mr Aberdein that he personally discussed the existence of the complaints, and summarised the substance of the complaints, with the First Minister in a pre arranged meeting in Parliament on 29th March 2018 arranged for that specific purpose cannot be reconciled with the position of the First Minister to Parliament. The fact that Mr Aberdein learned of these complaints in early March 2018 from the Chief of Staff to the First Minister who thereafter arranged for the meeting between Mr Aberdein and the First Minister on 29th March to discuss them, is supported by his sharing that information contemporaneously with myself, Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton, Advocate."
I have used this one because the same one is highlighted in a national newspaper today and I am therefore not producing anything not very clearly in the public domain, a point I will come back to. Some obvious points: *This paragraph does not mention, let alone identify the complainants. *It does not identify the nature of the complaints or give any detail that might give a clue as to who they are. *It does indicate that these complaints had been made to the Scottish government who might reasonably be inferred to be their employers. *It contains detailed and apparently corroborated evidence that the First Minister lied to Parliament about when she was told of the nature of the allegations. She has essentially admitted this claiming she "forgot" about this meeting.
The contempt of court order was explained by the Lord Justice Clerk, the trial judge and our second most senior judge last week. What she said was:
"All matters relating to the decisions of the committee, its way of working, the rejection or acceptance of submissions, the question whether, when and to what extent redaction of material was necessary to enable it to consider material which could not be published for one reason or another, whether to accept material on a confidential basis, the way in which it ensured adherence both to the order and generally to the principle that complainers in sexual cases should not be identified, are in my view wholly irrelevant to any matters which it is within the jurisdiction of the court to address. These are all matters entirely in the hands of the committee and it is not for this court to interfere with that or to seek to direct the committee in any way."
So on what basis did Crown Office claim that the above paragraph breached a contempt of court order? I regret to say that that question was not answered by the Lord Advocate yesterday when addressing Parliament.
Put aside the absurdity that the entire redacted statement is already available to anyone who wants to read it and the only reasonable conclusion is that the purpose of this redaction is to stop the committee from hearing evidence that the First Minister lied by excluding that evidence so that there is no evidence.
Wolfe looked dodgier than Sturgeon yesterday, sweating like the proverbial , constantly licking his lips and did not answer any of the questions put to him. He will get roasted when back in front of the committee. Many of the conspirators are not good liars and Sturgeon is starting to unravel. Be interesting if they called Uncle Fester and made him appear in person rather than remotely with his magpie.
In Scotland's case, it's the only way to ensure it gets spent.
LOL, I see their union team is scrapped after two leaders in two weeks, in disarray and having Union Jack and a cabinet committee will make little difference. The game is over we are now squabbling about who will run the country, cheats and robbers or people interested in Scotland. The union is dead. Union Jack spending money exclusively in Tory seats will go down well and for sure be money well spent.
Nice to see Mal's back.
Holyrood has screwed the local authorities in Scotland so good to see UKG circumventing the nest of vipers.
It is a pathetically stupid move from the clowns, even if it is a pittance, and can only engender more hatred of Westminster. They really seem to want to end the union.
So who thought this was a pitch for four fast bowlers ?
In India.. its soon all.the way... the pitch has been put in from.chennai earth.. something gas to be done about this.. in the County Championship the home team would have been deducted 24 pts for a pitch like this......
In Scotland's case, it's the only way to ensure it gets spent.
LOL, I see their union team is scrapped after two leaders in two weeks, in disarray and having Union Jack and a cabinet committee will make little difference. The game is over we are now squabbling about who will run the country, cheats and robbers or people interested in Scotland. The union is dead. Union Jack spending money exclusively in Tory seats will go down well and for sure be money well spent.
So who thought this was a pitch for four fast bowlers ?
In India.. its soon all.the way... the pitch has been put in from.chennai earth.. something gas to be done about this.. in the County Championship the home team would have been deducted 24 pts for a pitch like this......
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
There will be some pretty substantial pension funds in jeopardy if the house of cards falls.
With Salmond back in Holyrood there will be some big changes.
Would be a big mistake. The SNP have one of those leaders who crop up once in a generation if you're lucky and there will be no room for both of them. What's more if an independent Scotland is to rejoin the EU they'll need a leader who commands the respect of the EU leaders which Nicola does.
My only question about this is the 'other renewable' category. I assume this includes the likes of Drax, not too far from me, who now co-fire coal and biomass (maybe some biomass-only generation now, not sure). Better than coal alone, but the life cycle analysis for biomass is not always that great - most of Drax's is shipped in too, I believe, rather than domestic. Not necessarily a whole lot better than a very efficient combined cycle natural gas plant, for example.
Four of the units at Drax are biomass only. You have to pretend that the CO2 coming out of the stack doesn't exist. According to the rules, it was emitted in the USA where the wood came from.
The primary forests cut down to provide it?
The word 'sustainable' has a lot to answer for when it comes to CO2.
Yes, technically the trees were cut down and replacements were planted. No, the habitat lost will never return.
They were also shipped on a transoceanic voyage by oil-burning boat and lorry, rather than grown close to where would be used.
Indeed.
No doubt someone will have the figures, but I can't believe local biomass is that great either.
How much diesel and energy consumption via the Haber process goes into growing a field of sweetcorn for an anaerobic digester? We have several farms round here growing such crops.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
Trump will only run if polling suggests he could win and the administration is very unpopular in 2024.
Biden's age will be an issue and having his achieved his ambition to reach the Oval Office he may well not run again, especially if it looks like Harris would win if he stepped down.
A younger Democrat like Joe Kennedy III or Beto O'Rourke might also run if they win the Massachusetts or Texas governors races in 2022
I agree on both Trump and Biden and believe there are betting opportunities against either being on the 2024 ballot.
Both, at this stage, have to make it appear there is a serious prospect that they will be candidates. Biden's domestic agenda would suffer from being seen as on the way out just as he's arrived, and it's a crucial part of Trump's influence that people believe there may well be a second coming.
But both will be extremely old, particularly Biden. Trump, meanwhile, had his ego badly shaken by defeat and really won't want to go through it again so, as you say, he'd need to feel he had a very good chance indeed without the social media outlets he prefers with which to communicate.
Not so sure on Kennedy and O'Rourke. Kennedy is very young (40). Beto had a poor campaign in 2020, won't be favourite in 2022, and will only be two years into his term as Governor if he succeeds. Either would be up against a VP who would be very well placed, and neither would be over the hill in 2028/32.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
That was true for one count and she was definitely talking about the whole lot. But anyway, wtf is she doing making these comments?
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
In the question of alleged abuse, is not "questioning someone's innocence" just what happens in our published media 10 times every day?
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
That was true for one count and she was definitely talking about the whole lot. But anyway, wtf is she doing making these comments?
I feel Woakes (More batting) or Bess (More spin) would have added to the team in place of one of Archer, Broad or Anderson. Maybe Woakes with Root's bowling !
One things I can't work out at the moment is why people on PB keep saying there is no flu this year, yet the ONS death stats are finding the usual number of flu/pneumonia deaths:
Sky News are now reporting that regular winter NHS crisis has arrived!
Pneumonia is not flu. Pneumonia can be caused by many causes - viruses amongst them, but also bacteria (by far the most common), bacteria-like organisms, fungi, and even aspiration pneumonia (caused by breathing in foreign objects). Hospital-acquired pneumonia from having invasive ventilation is also a thing.
That also shows that deaths FROM is far lower than deaths WITH for pneumonia (and for flu).
Over the past decade or so, they've split "pneumonia and influenza" deaths out for "pneumonia" and "influenza". These tilt hugely towards pneumonia. Deaths from pneumonia usually are between 25,000 and 29,000 per year in England and Wales; deaths from influenza (as tested) vary between 83 and 1596 per year over the decade (usually in the few hundreds). These are as recorded on death certificates.
Above the latter, there are estimated influenza deaths each year that aren't recorded on death certificates, based on excess deaths, extreme temperatures, and the measured prevalence of the influenza virus that year (and the level at which people are hospitalised for it). These won't appear in the ONS stats for comparison and are usually in the single-figure-thousands per year, but can spike up to 20,000 in a very bad year. The modelled influenza deaths won't be visible yet, but given the measured prevalence of the influenza virus (which is still tested for; they still look for it in hospitals) will be very low indeed this year.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
In the question of alleged abuse, is not "questioning someone's innocence" just what happens in our published media 10 times every day?
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
Positive for the plague in my household. Wife's tested positive despite taking all the precautions and having the Pfizer first jab in December. She's asymptomatic, just been picked up as she does 3 tests a week.
I guess I'll get the plague now and may not be as lucky to be asymptomatic. Kind of regretting piling the pounds back on over winter that I lost last spring now. 😟
Sorry to hear that, Philip. Look after yourself and stay safe. Hope and yours you don’t catch it.
Well if the grubby fingers of the Spectator are behind this the mist is beginning to clear. 'English Unionist Ultras go to war against Scottish Independence' would be a more accurate headline for the Mail/Andrew Neil headline
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
There will be some pretty substantial pension funds in jeopardy if the house of cards falls.
With Salmond back in Holyrood there will be some big changes.
Would be a big mistake. The SNP have one of those leaders who crop up once in a generation if you're lucky and there will be no room for both of them. What's more if an independent Scotland is to rejoin the EU they'll need a leader who commands the respect of the EU leaders which Nicola does.
Sturgeon is a goner, and her planned successor playing Macbeth is up to their neck in it.
India 125-8 now. Root 3 wickets for no nuns, according to BBC site, which is a bit slow.
You know it’s live on Channel 4?
Yes, but wife is cleaning the room where the TV is!
You can watch it on www.channel4.com
Yes, but one has to register. And UME that means advertising emails clogging up my in-box. Anyway I get the thrill of switching over the BBC site and seeing more excitements.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
In the question of alleged abuse, is not "questioning someone's innocence" just what happens in our published media 10 times every day?
Before a trial, perhaps. After? No.
Yes everybody unequivocally treats OJ Simpson as an innocent man following his acquittal. 🤔
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
In the question of alleged abuse, is not "questioning someone's innocence" just what happens in our published media 10 times every day?
Before a trial, perhaps. After? No.
Yes everybody unequivocally treats OJ Simpson as an innocent man following his acquittal. 🤔
While the delay will have caused deaths (halt society, halt transmission is surely an immutable fact), there didn't seem to be any type of public appetite for it. Then. We were all learning.
My recollection is that there has been consistent public appetite for more severe lockdown since the very early days, and in particular the "freedom for Christmas" initiative was not popular. Now that the approach is much more careful, public opinion is on the whole supportive, though the proportion who think the policy is too relaxed still outweighs those who want faster opening. As you say, lockdown has all kinds of downsides for health and everything else, and people do know that, but most feel that controlling the pandemic needs to come first, because if it bursts out of control - as it did - then you simply have to lock down or experience complete social breakdown.
In any case, Government shouldn't be purely about short-term popularity. Even if Johnson believed in the early days that people would like him to "free" them, avoiding mass deaths should have been a higher priority. This really isn't hindsight - lots of us said so at the time.
People who are vaccinated, or at least three weeks after they are vaccinated, will feel more confident. Credit where credit is due, I am no fan of this Government, gently leading people out of their isolation is better than throwing them out onto the streets now. People will, I think, feel differently come the summer.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
Slowly at first, then quickly. (A new quote that I picked up from this site and destined to be a cliché I suppose).
One things I can't work out at the moment is why people on PB keep saying there is no flu this year, yet the ONS death stats are finding the usual number of flu/pneumonia deaths:
Sky News are now reporting that regular winter NHS crisis has arrived!
Pneumonia is not flu. Pneumonia can be caused by many causes - viruses amongst them, but also bacteria (by far the most common), bacteria-like organisms, fungi, and even aspiration pneumonia (caused by breathing in foreign objects). Hospital-acquired pneumonia from having invasive ventilation is also a thing.
That also shows that deaths FROM is far lower than deaths WITH for pneumonia (and for flu).
Over the past decade or so, they've split "pneumonia and influenza" deaths out for "pneumonia" and "influenza". These tilt hugely towards pneumonia. Deaths from pneumonia usually are between 25,000 and 29,000 per year in England and Wales; deaths from influenza (as tested) vary between 83 and 1596 per year over the decade (usually in the few hundreds). These are as recorded on death certificates.
Above the latter, there are estimated influenza deaths each year that aren't recorded on death certificates, based on excess deaths, extreme temperatures, and the measured prevalence of the influenza virus that year (and the level at which people are hospitalised for it). These won't appear in the ONS stats for comparison and are usually in the single-figure-thousands per year, but can spike up to 20,000 in a very bad year. The modelled influenza deaths won't be visible yet, but given the measured prevalence of the influenza virus (which is still tested for; they still look for it in hospitals) will be very low indeed this year.
Absolutely. The idea that there is an high level of undetected influenza is nonsense. Precisely the same pattern is seen in other developed countries. The US, which usually sees a hundred or more child deaths from influenza, has reported just one this winter.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
which is same as not guilty
I know but I was talking about the mindset around it, some people perceive it to be less of an acquittal than not guilty.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
In the question of alleged abuse, is not "questioning someone's innocence" just what happens in our published media 10 times every day?
Before a trial, perhaps. After? No.
Yes everybody unequivocally treats OJ Simpson as an innocent man following his acquittal. 🤔
Well there was a civil trial afterwards....
People didn't wait until the civil trial to ignore/dispute/question the acquittal.
Though I don't recall his Governor or similar getting involved like Sturgeon has.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
which is same as not guilty
I always thought it meant "We know you did it, you know you did it, but you managed to wriggle your way out of it this time"!
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
There will be some pretty substantial pension funds in jeopardy if the house of cards falls.
With Salmond back in Holyrood there will be some big changes.
Glad to see you back Malc! Things have been so bad, I’ve even been agreeing with Carlotta!
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
Slowly at first, then quickly. (A new quote that I picked up from this site and destined to be a cliché I suppose).
Nope, in the space of 12 months she lost the SNP majority at Holyrood and lost more MPs (net) than Mrs May at the 2017 general election.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
All juries are told that not proven is an acquittal. That is about all they are told about it.
The issue here is that Gordon Jackson's jury speech acknowledged that Salmond had been far from impeccable in his behaviour but that the question was did it come anywhere near criminal conduct or was it all just a bit fishy. Can't imagine who or what he was referring to on the last point.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
No one's questioning his innocence. His own barrister said his behaviour was appalling. The jury simply decided that chasing women around bedrooms whilst dunk was just bad behaviour not something that should land him a long sentence in jail which would have been the result of a guilty verdict. Presumably they thought humiliation was enough.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
In the question of alleged abuse, is not "questioning someone's innocence" just what happens in our published media 10 times every day?
Before a trial, perhaps. After? No.
Yes everybody unequivocally treats OJ Simpson as an innocent man following his acquittal. 🤔
But the President of the United States (not even Trump!) wouldn't dream of saying publicly that he thought OJ did it.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
which is same as not guilty
I know but I was talking about the mindset around it, some people perceive it to be less of an acquittal than not guilty.
That is true, there are a lot of stupid people around for certain who have no clue and just go by tabloid headlines.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
Slowly at first, then quickly. (A new quote that I picked up from this site and destined to be a cliché I suppose).
As young ladies used to say to me back in the day. I think; memories fade away.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
There will be some pretty substantial pension funds in jeopardy if the house of cards falls.
With Salmond back in Holyrood there will be some big changes.
Glad to see you back Malc! Things have been so bad, I’ve even been agreeing with Carlotta!
Cheers Firlie, Must be desperate and obviously could not have been about Scotland.
It's not in that piece, but they're reporting on the TV this morning that there are concerns that his will lead to grade inflation.
No shit!
There are no good options with this. But given the screeching last year, there is no other option. I don't know how (decent) universities have approached giving places this year, but if they've done the usual thing of making more offers than places, they are going to have a problem again.
If universities were capable of thinking outside the box, they’d realise that they could expand their numbers somewhat by offering mostly-online courses in many subjects, for a reduced tuition fee. This could attract both students who can’t move away from home, students worried about debt and mature students, all groups they’re trying to encourage into universities.
Almost all the big US universities do that right now, and if I wasn't so busy, I'd consider it.
The problem is that - while it works very well for forty-somethings - it's a harder sell to most 18 year olds. University, after all, is about more than your course. (I "studied" philosophy. But my real education was hanging out with a bunch of really smart people. And becoming a fantastic poker player.)
Open University? 175k students. Fees about half of the others.
Not really - fees are the same in the end as the courses take 5-6 years rather than 3.
And the important thing to remember here is that on the online courses you pay for the certification at the end not the knowledge..
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
That was true for one count and she was definitely talking about the whole lot. But anyway, wtf is she doing making these comments?
I think she’s desperate now. Flailing out in all directions.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
which is same as not guilty
True, but Salmond's reputation has been comprehensively trashed, and Nicola is doubling down on the trashing. Even during what was supposed to be a Covid briefing.
What I find improbable is that his, err, manner of conducting himself came as a surprise to her when briefed in 2018. There's an argument that as his deputy and chief cheerleader for so many years, and as Scotland's most powerful woman during that period, she effectively threw a shield around him which would have dissuaded women from complaining. Once he became a political problem, the shield was withdrawn, and he was thrown to the wolves.
It's not binary. Quite possible to believe they are both wrong uns.
In Scotland's case, it's the only way to ensure it gets spent.
LOL, I see their union team is scrapped after two leaders in two weeks, in disarray and having Union Jack and a cabinet committee will make little difference. The game is over we are now squabbling about who will run the country, cheats and robbers or people interested in Scotland. The union is dead. Union Jack spending money exclusively in Tory seats will go down well and for sure be money well spent.
Nice to see Mal's back.
Holyrood has screwed the local authorities in Scotland so good to see UKG circumventing the nest of vipers.
Yep. Good to see the UK Government realising that the SNP will take every pound of funding it gets and turn it against the UK. They're wising up.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
No one's questioning his innocence. His own barrister said his behaviour was appalling. The jury simply decided that chasing women around bedrooms whilst dunk was just bad behaviour not something that should land him a long sentence in jail which would have been the result of a guilty verdict. Presumably they thought humiliation was enough.
"The behaviour of the complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality but that doesn't mean that the behaviour that they complained of didn't happen."
Wrong. They made allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape. He was found not guilty and that behaviour did not happen. End of story.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
which is same as not guilty
I always thought it meant "We know you did it, you know you did it, but you managed to wriggle your way out of it this time"!
Not as simple as that , to me it means there is a possibility they could have done it but no evidence to be able to prove it. In olden days Scotland had Proven and Not Proven as verdicts.
I think Sturgeon will be a diminished figure now assuming she survives the next few weeks. It may not be immediately obvious and I've no idea how voting in May will be affected but she and the SNP as a whole have lost moral authority. It will seep into the consciousness of the electorate, she's on the slide.
She's been on the slide before and recovered.
She's very resilient. I do wonder whether it may lead to folk becoming queasy at the prospect of an SNP majority though, and reduce turnout. Chance for Scottish Labour under a shiny new leader?
I think there will be a reduction in turnout from SNP voters, including activists. That’s what lost her the seats at Westminster in 2017, although that was caused by backtracking on Independence.
I see the very same coalition of bed-wetters and Trumptons that ramped Trump last time are doing so again. All we need to complete the set is an intervention by Mr Ed to explain in great detail why Virginia could swing red.
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
It's surprising* that those comments haven't caused serious trouble.
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
I think it is slightly different mindset in Scotland because they also have the concept of 'not proven'.
which is same as not guilty
I always thought it meant "We know you did it, you know you did it, but you managed to wriggle your way out of it this time"!
Not as simple as that , to me it means there is a possibility they could have done it but no evidence to be able to prove it. In olden days Scotland had Proven and Not Proven as verdicts.
Don't think so Malcolm. But I do agree that the correct application of the not proven verdict is that it is not proven that the accused did it to the requisite standard of proof, that is beyond a reasonably doubt, which is, of course, exactly the same standard that is applied to not guilty.
Does anyone want to bet on the draw at 480/1? Anyone at all?
England are the value there. You are looking at one good partnership to turn the game.
I do hope they attack. They have the men to do it, and there is no sense in defending because you know you are going to get an unplayable one before long.
Ah, thanks. GDPR should not mess with this, but people often get it wrong.
GDPR makes (the legal basis for) getting access to data easier/clearer in some cases - for example with my healthcare records research. Some cases where need for consent was a grey area before (and would be impossible on large scale projects, so they simply would not happen) are now clearly legal without consent. Data access to provide healthcare services is one of the reasons. Possible that someone was overzealous in interpretation and failed to collect these data in the first place, I guess?
Does anyone want to bet on the draw at 480/1? Anyone at all?
I cant remember the last draw, whereas when I started watching in the 90s about 50% of matches were draws. Its getting to the point where laying the draw in test cricket is free money provided the weather is okay.
Will any of the England batsmen get into double figures?
This pitch is an absolute disgrace.
Possibly, but Michael Vaughan and others were saying that the pitch was an absolute disgrace during the last test when England were all out for 134 (India having already scored 329). India still managed 286 in their second innings. I'd wait and see before passing final judgment.
Comments
Still be interesting to see a life cycle full analysis though - when I was looking at this eight or so years back, intensive fertiliser use (often needed to maximise growth) had a pretty big carbon footprint itself.
This is such a complex story and it is easy to understand why the majority do not comprehend what is going on.
I am not a Scot but have become fascinated by every twist and turn.
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1364861797862428672?s=21
Thank goodness for this doughty fighter for truth being able to keep his finger on the Scotch pulse from his villa in France.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1364823729704951810?s=21
https://news.stv.tv/opinion/a-mess-to-embarrass-the-architects-of-devolution
"Another cardinal principle in the separation of power stakes is that politicians should refrain from becoming embroiled in controversy relating to criminal prosecutions, since that is a matter for the Crown Office and the Courts.
"At her Covid briefing today the First Minister, I would suggest, stretched that principle to breaking point. Of Salmond’s acquittal she said this, ‘Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen. It is important we don’t lose sight of that’.
"A prosecution has occurred and a citizen has been acquitted by a jury of fellow citizens listening to all of the evidence. And yet nearly a year after the acquittal of that citizen, the First Minister believes ‘that doesn’t mean the behaviour they claimed of didn’t happen’. That view, with respect to Nicola Sturgeon, is precisely why we have Juries. This forage into Mr Salmond’s acquittal wasn’t really wise."
I still find it difficult to believe that Nicola - a notoriously cautious politician - can really have implicated herself but how else can you explain what is happening. As Sherlock says: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
EU leaders which Nicola does.
No doubt someone will have the figures, but I can't believe local biomass is that great either.
How much diesel and energy consumption via the Haber process goes into growing a field of sweetcorn for an anaerobic digester? We have several farms round here growing such crops.
I spent lots of money on non refundable train tickets from London, not that I'm sore about it.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/west-indies-tour-of-england-and-scotland-2000-61879/england-vs-west-indies-4th-test-63891/full-scorecard
* Okay, not surprising because a lot of the media probably think that she's right and that there's nothing wrong with questioning someone's innocence.
England 3.7
Draw 460
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/india-v-england-betting-30291416
Both, at this stage, have to make it appear there is a serious prospect that they will be candidates. Biden's domestic agenda would suffer from being seen as on the way out just as he's arrived, and it's a crucial part of Trump's influence that people believe there may well be a second coming.
But both will be extremely old, particularly Biden. Trump, meanwhile, had his ego badly shaken by defeat and really won't want to go through it again so, as you say, he'd need to feel he had a very good chance indeed without the social media outlets he prefers with which to communicate.
Not so sure on Kennedy and O'Rourke. Kennedy is very young (40). Beto had a poor campaign in 2020, won't be favourite in 2022, and will only be two years into his term as Governor if he succeeds. Either would be up against a VP who would be very well placed, and neither would be over the hill in 2028/32.
https://twitter.com/barneyronay/status/1364879595854589955
https://twitter.com/fidelmacook/status/1364859297767825412
God, I need to get my mind out of the gutter.
Maybe Woakes with Root's bowling !
Pneumonia can be caused by many causes - viruses amongst them, but also bacteria (by far the most common), bacteria-like organisms, fungi, and even aspiration pneumonia (caused by breathing in foreign objects). Hospital-acquired pneumonia from having invasive ventilation is also a thing.
That also shows that deaths FROM is far lower than deaths WITH for pneumonia (and for flu).
Over the past decade or so, they've split "pneumonia and influenza" deaths out for "pneumonia" and "influenza". These tilt hugely towards pneumonia. Deaths from pneumonia usually are between 25,000 and 29,000 per year in England and Wales; deaths from influenza (as tested) vary between 83 and 1596 per year over the decade (usually in the few hundreds). These are as recorded on death certificates.
Above the latter, there are estimated influenza deaths each year that aren't recorded on death certificates, based on excess deaths, extreme temperatures, and the measured prevalence of the influenza virus that year (and the level at which people are hospitalised for it). These won't appear in the ONS stats for comparison and are usually in the single-figure-thousands per year, but can spike up to 20,000 in a very bad year. The modelled influenza deaths won't be visible yet, but given the measured prevalence of the influenza virus (which is still tested for; they still look for it in hospitals) will be very low indeed this year.
But many thanks for your helpful thoughts.
The idea that there is an high level of undetected influenza is nonsense.
Precisely the same pattern is seen in other developed countries. The US, which usually sees a hundred or more child deaths from influenza, has reported just one this winter.
Though I don't recall his Governor or similar getting involved like Sturgeon has.
https://twitter.com/jeanmackenzie/status/1364838822379454464
The issue here is that Gordon Jackson's jury speech acknowledged that Salmond had been far from impeccable in his behaviour but that the question was did it come anywhere near criminal conduct or was it all just a bit fishy. Can't imagine who or what he was referring to on the last point.
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/fees-and-funding
As opposed to 9k per year for normal degrees at standard Unis.
So - OK - that is probably 1/3 less.
https://twitter.com/SundayTimesSco/status/1364886788309983233
What I find improbable is that his, err, manner of conducting himself came as a surprise to her when briefed in 2018. There's an argument that as his deputy and chief cheerleader for so many years, and as Scotland's most powerful woman during that period, she effectively threw a shield around him which would have dissuaded women from complaining. Once he became a political problem, the shield was withdrawn, and he was thrown to the wolves.
It's not binary. Quite possible to believe they are both wrong uns.
https://twitter.com/JFouriau/status/1364876628904579072
India 1.39
England 3.5
Draw 480
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/india-v-england-betting-30291416
From 0:48
"The behaviour of the complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality but that doesn't mean that the behaviour that they complained of didn't happen."
Wrong. They made allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape. He was found not guilty and that behaviour did not happen. End of story.
I think the only bowlers to have captained England since Willis were John Emburey and Andrew Flintoff.
Edit - I forgot about the Ginger Ninja captaining England last summer.
This pitch is an absolute disgrace.
Nice to see you back btw.
Sturgeon b Baillie 0?
I do hope they attack. They have the men to do it, and there is no sense in defending because you know you are going to get an unplayable one before long.
Perhaps we should have concentrated on bringing more than one batsman instead. 😂
GDPR makes (the legal basis for) getting access to data easier/clearer in some cases - for example with my healthcare records research. Some cases where need for consent was a grey area before (and would be impossible on large scale projects, so they simply would not happen) are now clearly legal without consent. Data access to provide healthcare services is one of the reasons. Possible that someone was overzealous in interpretation and failed to collect these data in the first place, I guess?