Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Local lockdowns by stealth – it is all looking rather chaotic – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149
    edited May 2021

    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    Shame that Neil Oliver has been poached by Gammon Broadcasting, that would be an exciting appointment.
    You do know he used to front NTS?

    Edit: Sorry, of course you do!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149
    ydoethur said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Surely you drink Scotch, rather than read it?
    But it would be so disrespectful not to use the proper terminology.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,081

    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    Shame that Neil Oliver has been poached by Gammon Broadcasting, that would be an exciting appointment.
    Judging by the substantial number of female journalists who have joined GBnews you are going to need to apologise for suggesting they are gammon
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486

    London Mayor borough and ward results

    Hi all, I've put together a spreadsheet showing the detailed London Mayor results with winner coloured in etc.

    It's available below, please shout if any problems or questions.

    Thanks!

    DC

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yY_SeYrmtNZ27hfv-9iDYR9i1UgZedlLdl_eqfKjinw/edit?usp=sharing

    It's unsung heroes like DC who deserve honours and medals, yet are overlooked each year.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕




    'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
    Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?

    Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum


    'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.

    But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
    '
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,850

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Well it would be difficult to know unless all previous quotes have not been tampered with. So do tell us.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,465

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,649
    Andy_JS said:

    Government withdrawing travel advice for the 8 areas.

    "This is a LOCAL lockdown for LOCAL people! There's nothing for YOU here!"
  • Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    So not a victim of Cancel Culture after all? 🤔
    Yes, or rather no, apparently not:

    https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/our-chair-tim-parker
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    So not a victim of Cancel Culture after all? 🤔
    Yes, or rather no, apparently not:

    https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/our-chair-tim-parker
    Would he have stayed on for his full 3 year “exceptional” term if not for the pressure?


  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,465
    I mean, whilst I’m happy to claim a much reduced risk to public health for the young, “zero risk” is very much overegging it.
    Between one in six and one in five of those in ICU were outside of the vulnerable Groups 1-9 (obviously the percentage has increased as the more vulnerable have been vaxxed).

    The one in seven children who experience covid symptoms for over 5 weeks if infected do concern me. I’ve had splitting headaches that last for days; having one that continues relentlessly for over a month with a possibility of just continuing on and on - that’s not good.
    Myalgia, fatigue, breathlessness - all not good.

    Which is why I feel a touch guilty that when my loved ones (all adults) are vaxed, the risk goes down hugely for them but not for all.

    However, the draw of true herd immunity is in front of us, and will be very welcome indeed.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    On lockdown, the only question the government should be asking itself is can we bring the June 21st freedom from restrictions forward?

    I’m including masks.
    I won’t be wearing one after June 21.

    I think that June 21st is just the end date for various activities being restricted. Social Distancing and Masks hasn't really featured in what the government plan.

    Certainly in the hospitals we have not been told to end these, at least not yet. Indeed fresh PPE guidance was issued nationally just last week.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486
    justin124 said:

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕




    'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
    Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?

    Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum


    'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.

    But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
    '
    Well that's pretty bizarre. How convenient for him that a procedural oversight regarding who the IEP reports to means he cannot face a recall.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    I think you're wrong on this one, Nick. When there are high numbers of susceptible population and high prevalence, then it makes sense for the government to have mandatory rules. When there are low numbers and low prevalence, it makes sense to have no rules. When you are in transition states, you can tilt the outcome to the desired one through partial compliance with guidance.

    If that is the case, why not let people make the personal, informed choice? Those who are risk averse follow the guidance, those who are not do what they want. The result is still sufficient modification of societal behaviour in the aggregate to achieve the desired public health outcome without forcing anyone to do what they are unwilling to do. As a neo-libertarian, that will always be the option I'd prefer.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,268

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
    Deaths per age group for England

    00 04 9
    05 09 6
    10 14 12
    15 19 30
    20 24 59
    25 29 115
    30 34 210
    35 39 354
    40 44 570
    45 49 1128
    50 54 2011
    55 59 3285
    60 64 3872
    65 69 8083
    70 74 11056
    75 79 15318
    80 84 20413
    85 89 22248
    90+ 23560
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
    I think people can end up in intensive care from any number of things. People can end up in intensive care from alcohol poisoning by drinking too much, so should we make alcohol sales illegal?

    If there's a credible risk for an individual then let the individuals weigh up their own risk profiles and make a choice.

    It isn't the government's responsibility to stop anyone from ever ending up in intensive care, its responsibility is to ensure that intensive care is available if it is needed.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,625
    Selebian said:

    The alternate view:

    Deepti Gurdasani
    @dgurdasani1
    ·
    7h
    I'm sure there's going to be the usual 'but vaccines now, so this is different' -
    Yes, vaccines will help, but SAGE modelling shows this is where we're headed even with current levels of vaccination with a more transmissible variant with some escape - if we continue as we are.

    "more transmissible" hmmm
    "some escape" hmmm hmmmmhh

    It must be said that she is not an expert, looking at her bio and publications. No more an expert than me, in fact (we appear to be a similar distance from being experts on infectious disease - and I'm no expert!)
    Anyone who says 'headed' instead of heading has no grip of basic grammar, so not sure why they should be trusted on coronavirus.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,551

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    Foxy said:

    On lockdown, the only question the government should be asking itself is can we bring the June 21st freedom from restrictions forward?

    I’m including masks.
    I won’t be wearing one after June 21.

    I think that June 21st is just the end date for various activities being restricted. Social Distancing and Masks hasn't really featured in what the government plan.

    Certainly in the hospitals we have not been told to end these, at least not yet. Indeed fresh PPE guidance was issued nationally just last week.
    Yes I realise this.

    Mine is a personal choice to avoid if at all possible any unnecessary restrictions on my person.

    Others can wear masks if they wish.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,758
    On the topic of seasonality in Covid-19: pretty comprehensive, admirably easy to read US paper on this, which comes up with fairly nuanced conclusions. Yes an apparent seasonal signature, stronger in high latitude countries, but not enough on its own to overwhelm other epidemiological factors especially early in the pandemic.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7892320/

    It seems average temperatures between 5 and 11C are the worst statistically for spread, though the error bars are large. This month has averaged 9.7C so far in Central England.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    justin124 said:

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕




    'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
    Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?

    Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum


    'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.

    But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
    '
    What a weird technicality.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,511
    Government advice on local restrictions: "Nothing Has Changed!"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    TimT said:

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    I think you're wrong on this one, Nick. When there are high numbers of susceptible population and high prevalence, then it makes sense for the government to have mandatory rules. When there are low numbers and low prevalence, it makes sense to have no rules. When you are in transition states, you can tilt the outcome to the desired one through partial compliance with guidance.

    If that is the case, why not let people make the personal, informed choice? Those who are risk averse follow the guidance, those who are not do what they want. The result is still sufficient modification of societal behaviour in the aggregate to achieve the desired public health outcome without forcing anyone to do what they are unwilling to do. As a neo-libertarian, that will always be the option I'd prefer.
    In a low prevalence situation then track and trace is probably the way to go, though our version seems pretty useless despite the surveillance state.

    Of course one person's freedom may impinge on another's personal space. I think a lot of people are wary of crowded places, and will be for some time.

    Those taking off their masks and crowding in need to display some manners to the rest.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    Foxy said:

    TimT said:

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    I think you're wrong on this one, Nick. When there are high numbers of susceptible population and high prevalence, then it makes sense for the government to have mandatory rules. When there are low numbers and low prevalence, it makes sense to have no rules. When you are in transition states, you can tilt the outcome to the desired one through partial compliance with guidance.

    If that is the case, why not let people make the personal, informed choice? Those who are risk averse follow the guidance, those who are not do what they want. The result is still sufficient modification of societal behaviour in the aggregate to achieve the desired public health outcome without forcing anyone to do what they are unwilling to do. As a neo-libertarian, that will always be the option I'd prefer.
    In a low prevalence situation then track and trace is probably the way to go, though our version seems pretty useless despite the surveillance state.

    Of course one person's freedom may impinge on another's personal space. I think a lot of people are wary of crowded places, and will be for some time.

    Those taking off their masks and crowding in need to display some manners to the rest.
    Personally, I don’t think so.

    Rather, I feel I have a responsibility to remain unmasked (after June 21) in order to encourage others. We are social animals and most tend to “go with the flow”.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,551

    justin124 said:

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕




    'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
    Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?

    Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum


    'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.

    But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
    '
    What a weird technicality.
    The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
    Deaths per age group for England

    00 04 9
    05 09 6
    10 14 12
    15 19 30
    20 24 59
    25 29 115
    30 34 210
    35 39 354
    40 44 570
    45 49 1128
    50 54 2011
    55 59 3285
    60 64 3872
    65 69 8083
    70 74 11056
    75 79 15318
    80 84 20413
    85 89 22248
    90+ 23560
    So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    London Mayor borough and ward results

    Hi all, I've put together a spreadsheet showing the detailed London Mayor results with winner coloured in etc.

    It's available below, please shout if any problems or questions.

    Thanks!

    DC

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yY_SeYrmtNZ27hfv-9iDYR9i1UgZedlLdl_eqfKjinw/edit?usp=sharing

    Thanks for that DoubleCarpet, I love the way some people produce things like this :)

    Do you know if there is any data available on how people who voted one way in the first round voted in the second? i.e how many UKIP voters in round 1 voted green in round 2 and so on?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕




    'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
    Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?

    Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum


    'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.

    But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
    '
    What a weird technicality.
    The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
    Indeed. It is to be hoped that MPs will act on a crossparty basis to redress this. Many Tories are appalled at his conduct.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    TimT said:

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
    Deaths per age group for England

    00 04 9
    05 09 6
    10 14 12
    15 19 30
    20 24 59
    25 29 115
    30 34 210
    35 39 354
    40 44 570
    45 49 1128
    50 54 2011
    55 59 3285
    60 64 3872
    65 69 8083
    70 74 11056
    75 79 15318
    80 84 20413
    85 89 22248
    90+ 23560
    So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
    Some of whom will have had underlying factors.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,551

    justin124 said:

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕




    'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
    Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?

    Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum


    'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.

    But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
    '
    What a weird technicality.
    The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
    It was in the Guardian:

    "But because Roberts appealed a finding against him by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, causing his case to be referred to the IEP, the formal process under the Recall of MPs Act of 2015 will not be triggered."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365
    edited May 2021

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    TimT said:

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
    Deaths per age group for England

    00 04 9
    05 09 6
    10 14 12
    15 19 30
    20 24 59
    25 29 115
    30 34 210
    35 39 354
    40 44 570
    45 49 1128
    50 54 2011
    55 59 3285
    60 64 3872
    65 69 8083
    70 74 11056
    75 79 15318
    80 84 20413
    85 89 22248
    90+ 23560
    So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
    That look right to me, but more than that almost all of those deaths where in people with known pre existing conditions that made them more vulnerable, and these people have also been offered the vaccine, several months ago.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486

    justin124 said:

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕




    'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
    Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?

    Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum


    'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.

    But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
    '
    What a weird technicality.
    The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
    So now we need MPs to show some integrity and close that loophole...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486
    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    The formula is 1-1/R0, where R naught is the R for a naive and unprotected population (i.e. where all members of the population are susceptible to infection)

    So if R0= 5, then herd immunity is 80% of the total population (not adult). If it is 3.6, as in Kent variant, then 72-73%
    If we get 95% of all adults (79% of the population) vaccinated with two shots providing 90% protection, that gets us to 67.5% of the total population protected. With about ⅓ of the 16.8 million unvaccinated kids and adults probably having naturally acquired immunity through exposure, that would almost certainly IMO take us to herd immunity with the current variants.
    Also, remember that potential case growth slows dramatically as you approach herd immunity. So even at the point when (say) only 60% of the population is vaccinated, there are far fewer hosts for the virus to infect.

  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,811
    Interesting potential F1 rule change:

    "FIA to look at IndyCar rule that would have denied Leclerc pole

    The FIA will look at IndyCar's rule deleting times for drivers who cause red flags in qualifying and deem its suitability for Formula 1 after Charles Leclerc's Monaco crash."


    https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-to-look-at-indycar-rule-that-would-have-denied-leclerc-pole/6515091/
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,625

    Looks like the @Casino_Royale campaign against the National Trust has succeeded.

    Don’t mess with pissed off boomer-manques from the Hampshire-Surrey borders.

    I’d be shitting myself if I were vegetarian.

    And being vegetarian your bowel movements would be twice the size, so shitting yourself would be no trivial matter.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473
    TimT said:

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
    Deaths per age group for England

    00 04 9
    05 09 6
    10 14 12
    15 19 30
    20 24 59
    25 29 115
    30 34 210
    35 39 354
    40 44 570
    45 49 1128
    50 54 2011
    55 59 3285
    60 64 3872
    65 69 8083
    70 74 11056
    75 79 15318
    80 84 20413
    85 89 22248
    90+ 23560
    So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
    If there is 'long-covid' (I think so) then it'd be very much about that rather than deaths. If some big number of youngsters have had covid and that has in some way hurt them then that's a really big thing,

    However... 'Long common cold', 'Long flu' .. Money needs to flow to the sector, but they really need to up their game.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    That's the face-saving statement they've put out, yes. And note it's a slightly extended second term (they run for three years) not a third.

    The fact is that Parker was facing a vote of no confidence at the next AGM in October. That's not something anyone would have bothered tabling resolutions for and campaigning for if he was going anyway.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
    Why should I embrace it?

    I am frightened by it - and I want better safeguards.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    justin124 said:

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕




    'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
    Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?

    Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum


    'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.

    But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
    '
    What a weird technicality.
    The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
    It was in the Guardian:

    "But because Roberts appealed a finding against him by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, causing his case to be referred to the IEP, the formal process under the Recall of MPs Act of 2015 will not be triggered."
    If the Standards Committee reported, but then it went to IEP, and then there was a suspension then that should really be a suspension after a Standards Committee report. Just because there was an IEP report inbetween doesn't stop the suspension from being after the finding by the Standards Commissioner.

    That loophole really should be closed.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited May 2021
    ..
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693

    Looks like the @Casino_Royale campaign against the National Trust has succeeded.

    Don’t mess with pissed off boomer-manques from the Hampshire-Surrey borders.

    I’d be shitting myself if I were vegetarian.

    And being vegetarian your bowel movements would be twice the size, so shitting yourself would be no trivial matter.
    That was, indeed, the buried joke in the last sentence.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    BigRich said:

    TimT said:

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
    Deaths per age group for England

    00 04 9
    05 09 6
    10 14 12
    15 19 30
    20 24 59
    25 29 115
    30 34 210
    35 39 354
    40 44 570
    45 49 1128
    50 54 2011
    55 59 3285
    60 64 3872
    65 69 8083
    70 74 11056
    75 79 15318
    80 84 20413
    85 89 22248
    90+ 23560
    So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
    That look right to me, but more than that almost all of those deaths where in people with known pre existing conditions that made them more vulnerable, and these people have also been offered the vaccine, several months ago.
    Sorry, slight error. I compared English deaths with UK population data. But you get my drift
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
    Why should I embrace it?

    I am frightened by it - and I want better safeguards.
    Technology is here to serve us, not the other way around.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,771
    edited May 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
    Even the Zuck puts tape over his laptop camera...

    I'm not paranoid (I have a gmail address) but refuse to use Facebook and block absolutely everything that can be blocked, just for annoyance value if nothing else.

    A lot of Chinese electronic tat (ip webcams, phones etc) does seem to enjoy sending messages back to the mother country, so if you care about that it is worth stopping.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,262

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
    It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,712
    I had a text earlier from Bradford NHS. An earlier slot for my second jab? No. Just to advise me of a change of venue as my original vaccination centre is no longer supplying AZ.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,811
    edited May 2021

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
    He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    HYUFD said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
    It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
    Sturgeon is lying, of course.
    It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,006
    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,262

    HYUFD said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
    It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
    Sturgeon is lying, of course.
    It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
    Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    edited May 2021
    I think the U.K. is already a nanny state with an unhealthy interest in what I do and how I spend my time.

    I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).

    I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,359
    edited May 2021
    Ageing Nobel laureates have not had a good pandemic.

    Most recently, the French virologist who discovered HIV claims that vaccines kill.
    https://twitter.com/AnukulShenoy/status/1397197510825943042

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-mass-covid-vaccination-an-unacceptable-mistake-that-is-creating-the-variants
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
    It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
    Sturgeon is lying, of course.
    It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
    Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
    Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,046

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,771

    I think the U.K. is already a nanny state with an unhealthy interest in what I do and how I spend my time.

    I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).

    I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.

    I don't think it's a nanny state, more a culture of people in the public sector wanting to justify their existence.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    CatMan said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
    He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
    If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)

    Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    Well said. The modern spins on the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' line is deeply worrying.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149
    Fenman said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
    William IV surely.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,262

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
    It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
    Sturgeon is lying, of course.
    It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
    Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
    Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
    They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Fenman said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
    Well, if he keeps the name then he'd be William V of the whole show, of course. But only the fourth Scottish William. They had one before 1603, we had two.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,465
    TimT said:

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
    Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
    Deaths per age group for England

    00 04 9
    05 09 6
    10 14 12
    15 19 30
    20 24 59
    25 29 115
    30 34 210
    35 39 354
    40 44 570
    45 49 1128
    50 54 2011
    55 59 3285
    60 64 3872
    65 69 8083
    70 74 11056
    75 79 15318
    80 84 20413
    85 89 22248
    90+ 23560
    So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
    And about 50,000 hospitalisations.
    The big takeaway is that the young, if hospitalised, have a far far greater chance of surviving.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,846

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
    To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    I think the U.K. is already a nanny state with an unhealthy interest in what I do and how I spend my time.

    I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).

    I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.


    There are many such indexes, including one helpfully called the Nanny state index: thought it only cover Europe:

    http://nannystateindex.org/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Fenman said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
    William IV since that's the higher ordinal number surely? There haven't been differential ordinal numbers since monarchs became monarchs of the United Kingdom, not England and Scotland separately.

    If there were to be another King James then unless there's any constitutional changes they would be James VIII for the whole United Kingdom, not James III in England.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,905
    Carnyx said:

    Fenman said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
    William IV surely.
    Everyone forgets William the Lion, but he was a very interesting man if not perhaps the most successful of monarchs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Lion
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,846

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
    Robert's business depends on him knowing if you're a crap driver, which some people might find embarrassing.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    No, that was before the Acts of Union 1707. He was James VII of Scotland.

    Scotland doesn't have a monarch anymore, nor does England, the United Kingdom does. Hence no more differentiated ordinal numbers.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Fenman said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
    William IV surely.
    Everyone forgets William the Lion, but he was a very interesting man if not perhaps the most successful of monarchs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Lion
    Given it says his other name was 'the rough', he clearly had a good PR team.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    BigRich said:

    I think the U.K. is already a nanny state with an unhealthy interest in what I do and how I spend my time.

    I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).

    I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.


    There are many such indexes, including one helpfully called the Nanny state index: thought it only cover Europe:

    http://nannystateindex.org/
    Thanks.

    It shows U.K. mid-table, with Germany freest.
    Interestingly, I think Germany has a much better approach to privacy than the U.K., too (despite it causing issues during coronavirus).

    But this table is only about food, alcoholic and tobacco.

    For me nanny statism encompasses drug regulation, driving rules, planning, cctv, privacy legislation, “hate” speech, burqa-bans etc etc.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,846
    Carnyx said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
    I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    No, that was before the Act of Union, so he was James II & VII (or VII & II!) The first theoretical numbering dispute arose with William IV in 1830, as we had an Anne and four Georges prior to that. Although I don't know how much of a bone of contention this would've been at the time, if a formal rule was established, or the precedence of the English system was simply assumed.

    Now there's an established convention that the higher number is used, but I'd be surprised if that were ever tested in practice. As long as both the Union and the Monarchy survive, they'll probably all pick names that don't cause this headache. If and when either falls then the problem becomes moot, of course.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    Ministers were forced to climb down on travel restrictions to English Covid hotspots after a day of mounting confusion and anger left millions of people wondering if they needed to cancel bank holiday plans.

    Contentious advice will be removed from the government website, a spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday evening. It had advised against all but essential travel to and from eight areas of England where the Covid variant identified in India has been spreading. Instead, people will be advised to “minimise travel”.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Carnyx said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
    Is that true?

    I thought they had EIIR but were vandalised so frequently they switched it to something else to avoid controversy?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War
  • Why can't our leaders decide on one name and stick with it?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Fenman said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
    William IV surely.
    Everyone forgets William the Lion, but he was a very interesting man if not perhaps the most successful of monarchs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Lion
    Given it says his other name was 'the rough', he clearly had a good PR team.
    William the bastard probably only went conquering so he could get a new name.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,905
    Carnyx said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
    James was of course King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom, but I believe the tradition of taking the higher regnal number comes from the reign of Edward VII, which was the first time it would otherwise have caused significant confusion - not least because of Edward Balliol.

    Worth noting as well that William would be William VII of Normandy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,486

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    No, that was before the Act of Union, so he was James II & VII (or VII & II!) The first theoretical numbering dispute arose with William IV in 1830, as we had an Anne and four Georges prior to that. Although I don't know how much of a bone of contention this would've been at the time, if a formal rule was established, or the precedence of the English system was simply assumed.

    Now there's an established convention that the higher number is used, but I'd be surprised if that were ever tested in practice. As long as both the Union and the Monarchy survive, they'll probably all pick names that don't cause this headache. If and when either falls then the problem becomes moot, of course.
    Wikipedia is interesting on this regnal number issue - it's been helped seemingly by the issue not coming up for a lot of the time since 1707, as most of the monarchs had a name not used previously in either England or Scotland

    To rationalise this usage, it was suggested by Winston Churchill that, in the future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used.[6] So, theoretically, any future British King Edward would be given the number IX, even though there have only been two (or three) previous Edwards in Scotland, but any future King Alexander would be given the number IV, even though he would be the first Alexander to reign in England. This had been the case de facto since the Acts of Union 1707; eight of the twelve monarchs since the Act had names never previously used in England or Scotland (Anne, six Georges, and Victoria), sidestepping the issue, and the English numbers for the remaining four monarchs' names (William, two Edwards, and Elizabeth) have consistently been higher and were used
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149

    Carnyx said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
    I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
    Correction (it was a long time since I collected pillar boxes): on checking, the EIIR boxes weren't used in Scotland, just a plain crown, after their initial reception proved unsatisfactory to all concerned.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486
    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.

    My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

    You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.

    But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.

    Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.

    There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.

    So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    White House spokeswoman talks of UFOs

    https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1397256155366363140?s=21

    Lol
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149

    Carnyx said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
    Is that true?

    I thought they had EIIR but were vandalised so frequently they switched it to something else to avoid controversy?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War
    Ah - had second thjoughts and checked before I saw this, sorry! Yes indeed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,905
    Leon said:

    White House spokeswoman talks of UFOs

    https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1397256155366363140?s=21

    Lol

    There was an article by a bloke called Sean Thomas, formerly of these parts, on Unherd today. Not sure whether you’ve seen it but you may find it interesting.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
    Robert's business depends on him knowing if you're a crap driver, which some people might find embarrassing.
    Crap drivers who know they're crap are actually perfectly good risks.

    It's crap drivers who think they're great who are the real problems. (Worse, these people seem to think that the three beers they've drunk actually make them into better drivers.)
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,931
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.

    My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

    You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.

    But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.

    Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.

    There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.

    So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
    Try buying a house with cash without an audit trail backed up by the banking system, or even a new car and you won't get very far.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,359
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
    To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
    Not sure that would appeal to @Dura_Ace .
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,778

    Carnyx said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
    I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
    He's right. Although I think the tradition was invented when the present Queen came to the throne. It's just that since the Union we have always had a king or queen where the highest number is the English one. James VII & II isn't a good example as it was before the Act of Union and was therefore separately both King of Scots and King of England.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    White House spokeswoman talks of UFOs

    https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1397256155366363140?s=21

    Lol

    There was an article by a bloke called Sean Thomas, formerly of these parts, on Unherd today. Not sure whether you’ve seen it but you may find it interesting.
    There is?! I love that guy’s work. Always witty, insightful, articulate and debonair.
    I’ll check it out now. Ta
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Carnyx said:

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
    I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
    Why would she be ER I?

    The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
    The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
    Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
    I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
    But you were wrong, that is the tradition.

    James II and VII (or James VII and II) was King of England and King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom.

    HMQ is Queen of the United Kingdom, not Queen of England or Queen of Scotland.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,967
    edited May 2021
    IanB2 said:

    Ministers were forced to climb down on travel restrictions to English Covid hotspots after a day of mounting confusion and anger left millions of people wondering if they needed to cancel bank holiday plans.

    Contentious advice will be removed from the government website, a spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday evening. It had advised against all but essential travel to and from eight areas of England where the Covid variant identified in India has been spreading. Instead, people will be advised to “minimise travel”.

    I initially on first glance read that as "cretinous advice".
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,649

    Looks like the @Casino_Royale campaign against the National Trust has succeeded.

    Don’t mess with pissed off boomer-manques from the Hampshire-Surrey borders.

    I’d be shitting myself if I were vegetarian.

    And being vegetarian your bowel movements would be twice the size, so shitting yourself would be no trivial matter.
    Don't be ridiculous. I've been a vegetarian for nearly 30 years and can report no such enhanced evacuations!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,251
    Just booked second vaccination

    9 weeks after first
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Cookie said:

    The terms of the debate here show that all that's needed is a covid variant that even partially evades the vaccines and we are back in lockdown for three months.

    Then another round of vaccines.

    Then another three months lockdown

    Once you decided to play the game, you became subject to the rules.

    There isn't a 'don't play the game' option though.
    You appear to be blaming people for accepting vaccinations as though implying not doing so would have brought forward release from lockdown. I can't see how one would lead to the other.
    All viruses have some degree of vaccine escape. There is no 100% effective vaccine for anything.
    What's really good for viruses is completely unvaccinated hosts, they have a much higher chance of hitting a mutation that increases their transmissability than in a vaxxed host.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.

    Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.

    That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.

    The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.

    I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.

    The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
    Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
    To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
    Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ?
    My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
This discussion has been closed.