1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
It never ceases to amaze me how indignant second wives(who were partially responsible for the break up of their husbands first marriage) become when their husband buggers off with someone else..
Surely one of the first things the second wife found out about her future husband, is that he’s the sort of man who cheats on his wife?
Years ago I knew a guy who had had two kids with the first wife, then had an affair and went off to the next wife and had two more. Then had another affair and moved off to the third wife. Who had two children... You’d have to be worried at that point, right?
That’s like Trump. Every 15 years, he’s dumped his current wife for a 30 year old woman. He’s a couple of years overdue now for the next one, maybe something distracted him this time...
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
I thought the whole point of being a catholic was that you could do what you like as long as you said sorry?
Logically I don't see the point of converting to it until the very last minute.
No - apologies are not enough. Repentance is needed: this is quite a lot harder. For one thing you need to promise - and mean it - not to do the bad thing ever again.
Best done on the deathbed.
Not always. The story is told of a priest who, on being told one of the most notorious reprobates in his parish - a drunken, violent, womanising bully - was on his deathbed, went to see him. He went into the room and said, ‘Do you renounce the devil and all his works?’
‘Don’t be so fucking stupid, Father,’ came the reply. ‘This really isn’t the moment to annoy him.’
There is the other, (sadly almost certainly apocryphal) story of W C Fields on his deathbed furiously leafing through the bible. When asked what he was doing he drawled "Looking for loopholes".
Some people have suggested that this may have changed since the change of Labour leader. Anecdotally there are a few hints of it. But that doesn't change the social media (and traditional media) bias towards outliers, particularly those that fit whichever story is big at the time
Opinium 28th April (height of Wallpapergate & Cummings leaks):
The Conservative lead drops from 11 points to 5 in a week as Boris Johnson’s ratings drop as well
The Conservatives have 42% of the vote vs. 37% for Labour.
Followed immediately by:
Opinium 14th May (after real votes cast in Hartlepool and local elections):
Labour woes propel Conservatives to 13 point lead
After tightening to a 5 point lead in our final national poll before the local elections, the Conservatives have 44% of the vote (+2) vs. 31% (-6) for Labour.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
As for what it means, it means - if Boris really is now a Catholic - that he can't recommend bishops for the CoE to HMQ. So Paul Dacre won't get made a Bishop as consolation for not getting the Ofcom job. So there is that, I suppose.
IIRC he was 'born' a Catholic, then confirmed in the CoE at Eton. Story of his life; whatever seems a good idea at the time, I suppose.
I believe Carrie has always been Catholic, though.
Is that bar specific to Catholics? After all, nobody questioned Lloyd George or Neville Chamberlain’s right to nominate bishops even though they were Nonconformists.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
It never ceases to amaze me how indignant second wives(who were partially responsible for the break up of their husbands first marriage) become when their husband buggers off with someone else..
Surely one of the first things the second wife found out about her future husband, is that he’s the sort of man who cheats on his wife?
Years ago I knew a guy who had had two kids with the first wife, then had an affair and went off to the next wife and had two more. Then had another affair and moved off to the third wife. Who had two children... You’d have to be worried at that point, right?
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
Yes, indeed.
Also, and it's not something I have any issue with at all, if Carrie is a strong practicing Catholic then one presumes the priest might have had something to say about having a child out of wedlock.
Hypocrisy is rife.
I'd have thought adultery might have got a look-in too.
I don't care about the PM and his latest wife. I do care very much indeed about the church's appalling treatment and description of gay people - not least because of its utter hypocrisy on the topic given how many priests are themselves gay and because the condemnation is so out of line with Jesus's teachings. It's simple bigotry and there should be no place for it in any church worthy of the name.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
But it’s what the government has been doing all along.
If so, do two wrongs make a right? FWIW I see two things at play right now.
1) A strategy where you take action and then pause to see the impact for a few weeks is entirely sensible, but requires patience and discipline. 2) Secondly, the new hotpots are poorly understood and a concern, so some caution is entering into the plan. That sounds sensible too.
Either way, if we start having folk doing their own thing as BigG advocates we lose our ability to assess (1) and take unnecessary risks with (2).
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
As for what it means, it means - if Boris really is now a Catholic - that he can't recommend bishops for the CoE to HMQ. So Paul Dacre won't get made a Bishop as consolation for not getting the Ofcom job. So there is that, I suppose.
IIRC he was 'born' a Catholic, then confirmed in the CoE at Eton. Story of his life; whatever seems a good idea at the time, I suppose.
I believe Carrie has always been Catholic, though.
Is that bar specific to Catholics? After all, nobody questioned Lloyd George or Neville Chamberlain’s right to nominate bishops even though they were Nonconformists.
Ah, but Catholics are 'different'. I recall at the time of the 'first referendum' that elderly Nonconformist ladies of my acquaintance were concerned about signing up to the Treaty of 'Rome'.
I believe the same suspicions are sometimes voiced in Northern Ireland.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
As for what it means, it means - if Boris really is now a Catholic - that he can't recommend bishops for the CoE to HMQ. So Paul Dacre won't get made a Bishop as consolation for not getting the Ofcom job. So there is that, I suppose.
IIRC he was 'born' a Catholic, then confirmed in the CoE at Eton. Story of his life; whatever seems a good idea at the time, I suppose.
I believe Carrie has always been Catholic, though.
Is that bar specific to Catholics? After all, nobody questioned Lloyd George or Neville Chamberlain’s right to nominate bishops even though they were Nonconformists.
Yes - section 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (as amended). If he's convicted then he commits a "high misdemeanour" and is barred from holding any public civil or military office.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
It never ceases to amaze me how indignant second wives(who were partially responsible for the break up of their husbands first marriage) become when their husband buggers off with someone else..
Surely one of the first things the second wife found out about her future husband, is that he’s the sort of man who cheats on his wife?
Years ago I knew a guy who had had two kids with the first wife, then had an affair and went off to the next wife and had two more. Then had another affair and moved off to the third wife. Who had two children... You’d have to be worried at that point, right?
Alexander deP......?
No, this chap was a plumber. Tbf the latest one, and this was 30 years ago, thought I was in my late thirties (I was 19 at the time), so I’m not sure she was that on the ball...
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
Join another church that is more welcoming. ROMAN Catholicism and the Church of England are not the only ones offering pastoral support.
It's the CATHOLIC church to me - none of this Roman nonsense which is just the English trying to make us sound foreign as if England were the centre of the world.
I'm not going to change. More likely I will gently drift away if it continues behaving like a pillock.
I can't help feeling that in the upper reaches there is a Brideshead tendency which is a bit too enamoured with the idea of catching high profile people as converts or those returning to the faith and that this makes them a bit less diligent about the entry requirements.
I was referencing, rather badly , the difference between the two types of Christianity viz a viz Roman Catholicism and the Church of England. I don't think I could find a home in the Catholic church certainly at my time of life.
In the Church of England you can find whatever level you want from Anglo Catholic to high church with incense to ordinary BCP to common worship and happy clappy.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
It never ceases to amaze me how indignant second wives(who were partially responsible for the break up of their husbands first marriage) become when their husband buggers off with someone else..
Surely one of the first things the second wife found out about her future husband, is that he’s the sort of man who cheats on his wife?
Years ago I knew a guy who had had two kids with the first wife, then had an affair and went off to the next wife and had two more. Then had another affair and moved off to the third wife. Who had two children... You’d have to be worried at that point, right?
Alexander deP......?
No, this chap was a plumber. Tbf the latest one, and this was 30 years ago, thought I was in my late thirties (I was 19 at the time), so I’m not sure she was that on the ball...
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
But it’s what the government has been doing all along.
If so, do two wrongs make a right? FWIW I see two things at play right now.
1) A strategy where you take action and then pause to see the impact for a few weeks is entirely sensible, but requires patience and discipline. 2) Secondly, the new hotpots are poorly understood and a concern, so some caution is entering into the plan. That sounds sensible too.
Either way, if we start having folk doing their own thing as BigG advocates we lose our ability to assess (1) and take unnecessary risks with (2).
The issue is that it means the guidelines/regulations are not worth following, because they are not based on an intelligent assessment of what is or isn’t happening. Examples abound. Schools being forced to stay open with cases running rampant to ensure the DfE could say it was in control of the situation. Choirs being ordered to rehearse in groups of no more than six if they’re amateur when church choirs have been singing in groups of eight to ten with no issues for months. The weird obsession with masks in all indoor spaces without proper thought given to when and where they would be most useful, and whether the at best marginal benefits elsewhere outweighed the considerable downsides. The lumping in of wildly different sectors of the leisure industry - e.g. golf courses and gyms - together.
And therefore, they seem bluntly to be little better than people making their own assessments on a case by case basis.
And that, along with Cummings and sheer frustration, is why people are doing so.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
As for what it means, it means - if Boris really is now a Catholic - that he can't recommend bishops for the CoE to HMQ. So Paul Dacre won't get made a Bishop as consolation for not getting the Ofcom job. So there is that, I suppose.
IIRC he was 'born' a Catholic, then confirmed in the CoE at Eton. Story of his life; whatever seems a good idea at the time, I suppose.
I believe Carrie has always been Catholic, though.
Is that bar specific to Catholics? After all, nobody questioned Lloyd George or Neville Chamberlain’s right to nominate bishops even though they were Nonconformists.
Yes - section 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (as amended). If he's convicted then he commits a "high misdemeanour" and is barred from holding any public civil or military office.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
As for what it means, it means - if Boris really is now a Catholic - that he can't recommend bishops for the CoE to HMQ. So Paul Dacre won't get made a Bishop as consolation for not getting the Ofcom job. So there is that, I suppose.
IIRC he was 'born' a Catholic, then confirmed in the CoE at Eton. Story of his life; whatever seems a good idea at the time, I suppose.
I believe Carrie has always been Catholic, though.
Is that bar specific to Catholics? After all, nobody questioned Lloyd George or Neville Chamberlain’s right to nominate bishops even though they were Nonconformists.
Ah, but Catholics are 'different'. I recall at the time of the 'first referendum' that elderly Nonconformist ladies of my acquaintance were concerned about signing up to the Treaty of 'Rome'.
I believe the same suspicions are sometimes voiced in Northern Ireland.
Usually very loudly by Iain Paisley who seemed to think NI was being delivered to the Whore of Babylon.
Didn't him sitting in the European Parliament and taking the Whore's money, though. Another grade "A" hypocrite.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
As for what it means, it means - if Boris really is now a Catholic - that he can't recommend bishops for the CoE to HMQ. So Paul Dacre won't get made a Bishop as consolation for not getting the Ofcom job. So there is that, I suppose.
IIRC he was 'born' a Catholic, then confirmed in the CoE at Eton. Story of his life; whatever seems a good idea at the time, I suppose.
I believe Carrie has always been Catholic, though.
Is that bar specific to Catholics? After all, nobody questioned Lloyd George or Neville Chamberlain’s right to nominate bishops even though they were Nonconformists.
Ah, but Catholics are 'different'. I recall at the time of the 'first referendum' that elderly Nonconformist ladies of my acquaintance were concerned about signing up to the Treaty of 'Rome'.
I believe the same suspicions are sometimes voiced in Northern Ireland.
Usually very loudly by Iain Paisley who seemed to think NI was being delivered to the Whore of Babylon.
Didn't him sitting in the European Parliament and taking the Whore's money, though. Another grade "A" hypocrite.
He didn’t sit in it very often though, did he? He just took the money.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
As for what it means, it means - if Boris really is now a Catholic - that he can't recommend bishops for the CoE to HMQ. So Paul Dacre won't get made a Bishop as consolation for not getting the Ofcom job. So there is that, I suppose.
IIRC he was 'born' a Catholic, then confirmed in the CoE at Eton. Story of his life; whatever seems a good idea at the time, I suppose.
I believe Carrie has always been Catholic, though.
Is that bar specific to Catholics? After all, nobody questioned Lloyd George or Neville Chamberlain’s right to nominate bishops even though they were Nonconformists.
Yes - section 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (as amended). If he's convicted then he commits a "high misdemeanour" and is barred from holding any public civil or military office.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
Join another church that is more welcoming. ROMAN Catholicism and the Church of England are not the only ones offering pastoral support.
It's the CATHOLIC church to me - none of this Roman nonsense which is just the English trying to make us sound foreign as if England were the centre of the world.
I'm not going to change. More likely I will gently drift away if it continues behaving like a pillock.
I can't help feeling that in the upper reaches there is a Brideshead tendency which is a bit too enamoured with the idea of catching high profile people as converts or those returning to the faith and that this makes them a bit less diligent about the entry requirements.
I was referencing, rather badly , the difference between the two types of Christianity viz a viz Roman Catholicism and the Church of England. I don't think I could find a home in the Catholic church certainly at my time of life.
In the Church of England you can find whatever level you want from Anglo Catholic to high church with incense to ordinary BCP to common worship and happy clappy.
The CofE is as much of an institution as it is a religion, if not more so.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
But it’s what the government has been doing all along.
If so, do two wrongs make a right? FWIW I see two things at play right now.
1) A strategy where you take action and then pause to see the impact for a few weeks is entirely sensible, but requires patience and discipline. 2) Secondly, the new hotpots are poorly understood and a concern, so some caution is entering into the plan. That sounds sensible too.
Either way, if we start having folk doing their own thing as BigG advocates we lose our ability to assess (1) and take unnecessary risks with (2).
The issue is that it means the guidelines/regulations are not worth following, because they are not based on an intelligent assessment of what is or isn’t happening. Examples abound. Schools being forced to stay open with cases running rampant to ensure the DfE could say it was in control of the situation. Choirs being ordered to rehearse in groups of no more than six if they’re amateur when church choirs have been singing in groups of eight to ten with no issues for months. The weird obsession with masks in all indoor spaces without proper thought given to when and where they would be most useful, and whether the at best marginal benefits elsewhere outweighed the considerable downsides. The lumping in of wildly different sectors of the leisure industry - e.g. golf courses and gyms - together.
And therefore, they seem bluntly to be little better than people making their own assessments on a case by case basis.
And that, along with Cummings and sheer frustration, is why people are doing so.
In particular, why is attendance at county cricket matches so strictly controlled? Essex, with space for about 6000 is only allowed a maximum of 600.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
My son is now about 2.5 hours into Cummings' evidence. He is finding it fascinating, not so much for the political tittle tattle but for the analysis of how governments work (or don't) and why their decision making processes are flawed. I really must find the time myself.
I am surprised, however, that it has cut through with the general public in the way that Opinium have apparently found. It will be interesting to see if this is a blip or a change in the weather.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
I thought the whole point of being a catholic was that you could do what you like as long as you said sorry?
Logically I don't see the point of converting to it until the very last minute.
No - apologies are not enough. Repentance is needed: this is quite a lot harder. For one thing you need to promise - and mean it - not to do the bad thing ever again.
Best done on the deathbed.
Not always. The story is told of a priest who, on being told one of the most notorious reprobates in his parish - a drunken, violent, womanising bully - was on his deathbed, went to see him. He went into the room and said, ‘Do you renounce the devil and all his works?’
‘Don’t be so fucking stupid, Father,’ came the reply. ‘This really isn’t the moment to annoy him.’
That reminds me somewhat of Harry Flashman's quip, following the death of Scud East at Cawnpore, with the name of Dr. Thomas Arnold of Rugby on his lips.
"It has the advantage that the devil, if you meet him later, will be an improvement."
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
My issue with it is that we have unprecedented restrictions on what are generally considered to be absolutely basic liberties. These were initially sold as preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed, but the goalposts have shifted as you said. The other factor for me is that if you listen to the people advocating continued restrictions *there is no exit.* Everyone vulnerable is vaccinated. What about the young? Everyone is vaccinated, what if a variant comes along, better wait until boosters have been given. Boosters have been given. It's now winter flu season, imagine how bad things will be with Covid and flu. Etc.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Anyway the good news this morning is that I have lost 23% of the weight I need to lose to get to my target weight.
At some point soon I hope to reacquaint myself with my waist .......
I suppose the name "cyclefree" should have alerted myself to the likelihood that the mental image i have built up of you in my mind is a million miles from the reality!!!
Good morning one and all. There's some cloud, apparently, drifting in from the North Sea and some of it's hanging over North Essex. However the forecasters assure us that it will soon break and we'll have another lovely day.
Able to sit in the pub garden by choice yesterday, after gardening, instead of by necessity! No-one, though, in the small group I was talking to, expects things to be back to 'normal', or very near it, next month. And the same thought is coming through other chats, on-line as well as face-to-face.
Morning OKC, Blue sky and sunshine here, looks like it will be a stunning day
Don't count your chickens Malcolm, I have a BBQ organised for 3pm so hail and high winds are imminent.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
I though it was that a wife could not be forced to give evidence against her husband. No idea if its still true. To suggest such a thing is about as cynical as you can get.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
But it’s what the government has been doing all along.
If so, do two wrongs make a right? FWIW I see two things at play right now.
1) A strategy where you take action and then pause to see the impact for a few weeks is entirely sensible, but requires patience and discipline. 2) Secondly, the new hotpots are poorly understood and a concern, so some caution is entering into the plan. That sounds sensible too.
Either way, if we start having folk doing their own thing as BigG advocates we lose our ability to assess (1) and take unnecessary risks with (2).
The issue is that it means the guidelines/regulations are not worth following, because they are not based on an intelligent assessment of what is or isn’t happening. Examples abound. Schools being forced to stay open with cases running rampant to ensure the DfE could say it was in control of the situation. Choirs being ordered to rehearse in groups of no more than six if they’re amateur when church choirs have been singing in groups of eight to ten with no issues for months. The weird obsession with masks in all indoor spaces without proper thought given to when and where they would be most useful, and whether the at best marginal benefits elsewhere outweighed the considerable downsides. The lumping in of wildly different sectors of the leisure industry - e.g. golf courses and gyms - together.
And therefore, they seem bluntly to be little better than people making their own assessments on a case by case basis.
And that, along with Cummings and sheer frustration, is why people are doing so.
In particular, why is attendance at county cricket matches so strictly controlled? Essex, with space for about 6000 is only allowed a maximum of 600.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
I thought the whole point of being a catholic was that you could do what you like as long as you said sorry?
Logically I don't see the point of converting to it until the very last minute.
No - apologies are not enough. Repentance is needed: this is quite a lot harder. For one thing you need to promise - and mean it - not to do the bad thing ever again.
Best done on the deathbed.
Not always. The story is told of a priest who, on being told one of the most notorious reprobates in his parish - a drunken, violent, womanising bully - was on his deathbed, went to see him. He went into the room and said, ‘Do you renounce the devil and all his works?’
‘Don’t be so fucking stupid, Father,’ came the reply. ‘This really isn’t the moment to annoy him.’
That reminds me somewhat of Harry Flashman's quip, following the death of Scud East at Cawnpore, with the name of Dr. Thomas Arnold of Rugby on his lips.
"It has the advantage that the devil, if you meet him later, will be an improvement."
The well-known professional punter Barney Curley, who took the bookies for millions, and who died last Sunday, set up a charity (DAFA) which built schools and hospitals in Zambia. Curley, who'd once set out to be a Jesuit priest, used to describe these good works as fire insurance.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
On testing in March-April 2020 source says "There was a choice with the number of tests available - [hospital] admissions or discharges, and the choice was admissions. That choice was made by PHE and NHSEI. Everyone knew it."
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
That was yesterday. He's now into his honeymoon period
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
I suppose there is a slight qualitative difference between that and being a discarded wife with a kid and a Jack Russell that shits everywhere. Which is her inevitable fate.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
But it’s what the government has been doing all along.
If so, do two wrongs make a right? FWIW I see two things at play right now.
1) A strategy where you take action and then pause to see the impact for a few weeks is entirely sensible, but requires patience and discipline. 2) Secondly, the new hotpots are poorly understood and a concern, so some caution is entering into the plan. That sounds sensible too.
Either way, if we start having folk doing their own thing as BigG advocates we lose our ability to assess (1) and take unnecessary risks with (2).
The issue is that it means the guidelines/regulations are not worth following, because they are not based on an intelligent assessment of what is or isn’t happening. Examples abound. Schools being forced to stay open with cases running rampant to ensure the DfE could say it was in control of the situation. Choirs being ordered to rehearse in groups of no more than six if they’re amateur when church choirs have been singing in groups of eight to ten with no issues for months. The weird obsession with masks in all indoor spaces without proper thought given to when and where they would be most useful, and whether the at best marginal benefits elsewhere outweighed the considerable downsides. The lumping in of wildly different sectors of the leisure industry - e.g. golf courses and gyms - together.
And therefore, they seem bluntly to be little better than people making their own assessments on a case by case basis.
And that, along with Cummings and sheer frustration, is why people are doing so.
In particular, why is attendance at county cricket matches so strictly controlled? Essex, with space for about 6000 is only allowed a maximum of 600.
Down here in Sussex 600 would be quite a large attendance for a 4-day county match; we'd rarely reach that! 6,000 for 20-20 games, though.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Are you sure @Cyclefree? I am not an English lawyer but the CPS website says that a spouse is only compellable by the prosecution in cases that are concerned with:
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to the spouse or civil partner; An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; An alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or Attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
Nothing about wallpaper there. That said, in Scotland at least the protection covers communings within the marriage and would not cover information received whilst a fiancée.
On topic, I think OGH might be getting a tad too excited.
I'd want more than 19/1 on the LDs for C&A too.
You're in luck. The LibDems have drifted to 20/1 (or 21 in Betfair-speak) since this thread started. 10/1 is the most you'll get from the conventional bookmakers, with the Conservatives 1/25 generally.
Up north in Batley & Spen, it is still 8/15 Con, 13/8 Labour.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Bless. I suspect you have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both doubt expert analysis and are prepared to make up your own rules.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
My son is now about 2.5 hours into Cummings' evidence. He is finding it fascinating, not so much for the political tittle tattle but for the analysis of how governments work (or don't) and why their decision making processes are flawed. I really must find the time myself.
I am surprised, however, that it has cut through with the general public in the way that Opinium have apparently found. It will be interesting to see if this is a blip or a change in the weather.
I remain hugely sceptical of everything Cummings says without evidence to back him up. However I absolutely agree that an outsiders view of the non-workings of government was compelling.
The Tories literally sacrificed themselves on a hill to defend Cummings. He is clearly a man of significant import who was personally hired, trusted and vouched for by the Prime Minister. If what he says now is the bitter lies of a lunatic then it really shines a light on the competence of the people who hired him, trusted him and said absurd things to defend him.
Or we have the other take. That what he says is largely true albeit filtered through a bit of "I got the sack and need to vent" emotion. In which case for the first time we have the view from directly inside the government machine from the most trusted and valued adviser that the PM is unfit, that everyone lies, that it is a pit of dysfunctional incompetence.
With so much of what happens with public opinion vs this government being counter-factual to political norms, it isn't impossible for this to cut through where nothing else does. It shouldn't! But as "it shouldn't but" is the normal state of affairs, who knows?
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Are you sure @Cyclefree? I am not an English lawyer but the CPS website says that a spouse is only compellable by the prosecution in cases that are concerned with:
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to the spouse or civil partner; An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; An alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or Attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
Nothing about wallpaper there. That said, in Scotland at least the protection covers communings within the marriage and would not cover information received whilst a fiancée.
Is there a possibly distinction between "cannot be compelled to testify", and "can be prevented from testifying (by their spouse)"?
Without knowing anything about it, one can imagine that the latter might once have been the long abandoned reality, whereas the former might have stuck around.
My son is now about 2.5 hours into Cummings' evidence. He is finding it fascinating, not so much for the political tittle tattle but for the analysis of how governments work (or don't) and why their decision making processes are flawed. I really must find the time myself.
I am surprised, however, that it has cut through with the general public in the way that Opinium have apparently found. It will be interesting to see if this is a blip or a change in the weather.
Yes, that's what I said at the time. The Cummings testimony was fascinating and gripping for students of the machinery of government, less so for the 'he said/she said' elements.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
It is Carrie who I feel sorry for. I don't doubt that she has fallen in love with a serial betrayer who has already done the dirty on her and will do so again. She doesn't strike me as simple, she knows this anyway, knows it will end in acrimony but hopes against hope that This Time will be different.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Bless. I suspect you have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both doubt expert analysis and are prepared to make up your own rules.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
Your last sentence is not proven
I made my position quite clear and it is time to stand up and demand the evidence before meekly going into further lockdown
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Are you sure @Cyclefree? I am not an English lawyer but the CPS website says that a spouse is only compellable by the prosecution in cases that are concerned with:
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to the spouse or civil partner; An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; An alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or Attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
Nothing about wallpaper there. That said, in Scotland at least the protection covers communings within the marriage and would not cover information received whilst a fiancée.
I thought that in such cases the law used to be that wives could not be compelled to testify against their husbands hence the need to make it explicit that this is no longer the law.
I'm not aware of any law stating that wives cannot testify against husbands over fraud, for instance. (I may be wrong on this, though.) To be honest, some of the most interesting whistleblowing cases were often from pissed off partners dobbing their husbands in .....
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Bless. I suspect you have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both doubt expert analysis and are prepared to make up your own rules.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
Your last sentence is not proven
I made my position quite clear and it is time to stand up and demand the evidence before meekly going into further lockdown
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
It is Carrie who I feel sorry for. I don't doubt that she has fallen in love with a serial betrayer who has already done the dirty on her and will do so again. She doesn't strike me as simple, she knows this anyway, knows it will end in acrimony but hopes against hope that This Time will be different.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
I suppose there is a slight qualitative difference between that and being a discarded wife with a kid and a Jack Russell that shits everywhere. Which is her inevitable fate.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Bless. I suspect you have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both doubt expert analysis and are prepared to make up your own rules.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
So you're allowed to question experts (in fact it is "necessary") but you're not allowed to doubt their analysis if you consider their answers unsatisfactory?
The story has been updated within the last half hour, and does report musicians being seen leaving Downing Street (via the front entrance so they can be photographed!).
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
It is Carrie who I feel sorry for. I don't doubt that she has fallen in love with a serial betrayer who has already done the dirty on her and will do so again. She doesn't strike me as simple, she knows this anyway, knows it will end in acrimony but hopes against hope that This Time will be different.
Henry VIII precedent. At some point he will have no choice but to stop moving on.
Good morning one and all. There's some cloud, apparently, drifting in from the North Sea and some of it's hanging over North Essex. However the forecasters assure us that it will soon break and we'll have another lovely day.
Able to sit in the pub garden by choice yesterday, after gardening, instead of by necessity! No-one, though, in the small group I was talking to, expects things to be back to 'normal', or very near it, next month. And the same thought is coming through other chats, on-line as well as face-to-face.
Morning OKC, Blue sky and sunshine here, looks like it will be a stunning day
Don't count your chickens Malcolm, I have a BBQ organised for 3pm so hail and high winds are imminent.
Early morning cloud has now burned off, as promised by the nice lady weather forecaster and we too have blue sky etc.
Town cricket club has a friendly this afternoon, and the bar will be open.
The story has been updated within the last half hour, and does report musicians being seen leaving Downing Street (via the front entrance so they can be photographed!).
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Are you sure @Cyclefree? I am not an English lawyer but the CPS website says that a spouse is only compellable by the prosecution in cases that are concerned with:
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to the spouse or civil partner; An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; An alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or Attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
Nothing about wallpaper there. That said, in Scotland at least the protection covers communings within the marriage and would not cover information received whilst a fiancée.
I thought that in such cases the law used to be that wives could not be compelled to testify against their husbands hence the need to make it explicit that this is no longer the law.
I'm not aware of any law stating that wives cannot testify against husbands over fraud, for instance. (I may be wrong on this, though.) To be honest, some of the most interesting whistleblowing cases were often from pissed off partners dobbing their husbands in .....
A spouse is always a competent witness so they can dob their spouse in without difficulty and there is an oddity in that they are compellable by the defence but they are not, AIUI, compellable by the Crown except where there is violence against them, a child or in respect of a sexual offence. Of course a co-accused is not compellable either unless they have already pleaded guilty.
I am having to brush up on all this stuff because I am delighted to say that I have just been appointed a part time Advocate Depute and will hopefully be prosecuting cases in the High Court quite soon.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
But it’s what the government has been doing all along.
If so, do two wrongs make a right? FWIW I see two things at play right now.
1) A strategy where you take action and then pause to see the impact for a few weeks is entirely sensible, but requires patience and discipline. 2) Secondly, the new hotpots are poorly understood and a concern, so some caution is entering into the plan. That sounds sensible too.
Either way, if we start having folk doing their own thing as BigG advocates we lose our ability to assess (1) and take unnecessary risks with (2).
The issue is that it means the guidelines/regulations are not worth following, because they are not based on an intelligent assessment of what is or isn’t happening. Examples abound. Schools being forced to stay open with cases running rampant to ensure the DfE could say it was in control of the situation. Choirs being ordered to rehearse in groups of no more than six if they’re amateur when church choirs have been singing in groups of eight to ten with no issues for months. The weird obsession with masks in all indoor spaces without proper thought given to when and where they would be most useful, and whether the at best marginal benefits elsewhere outweighed the considerable downsides. The lumping in of wildly different sectors of the leisure industry - e.g. golf courses and gyms - together.
And therefore, they seem bluntly to be little better than people making their own assessments on a case by case basis.
And that, along with Cummings and sheer frustration, is why people are doing so.
In particular, why is attendance at county cricket matches so strictly controlled? Essex, with space for about 6000 is only allowed a maximum of 600.
Down here in Sussex 600 would be quite a large attendance for a 4-day county match; we'd rarely reach that! 6,000 for 20-20 games, though.
The first day of a county game is usually very well attended; 2-3000 isn't unusual. Tails off by the afternoon of the third, though.
Rammed, I'm told, for 20/20 games, at least at the start of that particular part of the season.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Tottsly agree. Everyone loves a wedding. And he is entitled to some time off now to spend with his wife and family.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
Meanwhile, in truly desperate news, the fast sinking Starmer is trying to blame the inevitable third wave and and possibly watering down of Freedom Day on mistakes Boris has made.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Anyway the good news this morning is that I have lost 23% of the weight I need to lose to get to my target weight.
At some point soon I hope to reacquaint myself with my waist .......
I suppose the name "cyclefree" should have alerted myself to the likelihood that the mental image i have built up of you in my mind is a million miles from the reality!!!
Well it's not a million miles away - I am very strong in that I can easily carry 75 litre bags of compost up and down a hilly garden etc. And I have the cycling (and ski-ing) injuries. I have been cycling since university days.
But lockdown has not been great news and as there are lots of mountains roundabout I want to get much fitter than I am. Many more evenings working at Daughter's pub will help. There's a reason why that is a young person's game but the number of steps you walk in an evening is amazing.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
But it’s what the government has been doing all along.
If so, do two wrongs make a right? FWIW I see two things at play right now.
1) A strategy where you take action and then pause to see the impact for a few weeks is entirely sensible, but requires patience and discipline. 2) Secondly, the new hotpots are poorly understood and a concern, so some caution is entering into the plan. That sounds sensible too.
Either way, if we start having folk doing their own thing as BigG advocates we lose our ability to assess (1) and take unnecessary risks with (2).
The issue is that it means the guidelines/regulations are not worth following, because they are not based on an intelligent assessment of what is or isn’t happening. Examples abound. Schools being forced to stay open with cases running rampant to ensure the DfE could say it was in control of the situation. Choirs being ordered to rehearse in groups of no more than six if they’re amateur when church choirs have been singing in groups of eight to ten with no issues for months. The weird obsession with masks in all indoor spaces without proper thought given to when and where they would be most useful, and whether the at best marginal benefits elsewhere outweighed the considerable downsides. The lumping in of wildly different sectors of the leisure industry - e.g. golf courses and gyms - together.
And therefore, they seem bluntly to be little better than people making their own assessments on a case by case basis.
And that, along with Cummings and sheer frustration, is why people are doing so.
In particular, why is attendance at county cricket matches so strictly controlled? Essex, with space for about 6000 is only allowed a maximum of 600.
1) The more detailed a set of rules are, the more mad inconsistencies there will be. 2) I think many of us would be content to be patient to wait for a given date for reopening if we trusted that commitment to be honoured. But we do not. So we cannot be happy to wait.
My son is now about 2.5 hours into Cummings' evidence. He is finding it fascinating, not so much for the political tittle tattle but for the analysis of how governments work (or don't) and why their decision making processes are flawed. I really must find the time myself.
I am surprised, however, that it has cut through with the general public in the way that Opinium have apparently found. It will be interesting to see if this is a blip or a change in the weather.
Yes, that's what I said at the time. The Cummings testimony was fascinating and gripping for students of the machinery of government, less so for the 'he said/she said' elements.
It was comments by yourself and a few others that got me to encourage him to do so. It genuinely seems one of the best insights into the actual operation of the modern state that we have had for a long time. For someone who will be studying politics as a part of his degree in the Autumn it is required viewing I think.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Are you sure @Cyclefree? I am not an English lawyer but the CPS website says that a spouse is only compellable by the prosecution in cases that are concerned with:
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to the spouse or civil partner; An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; An alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or Attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
Nothing about wallpaper there. That said, in Scotland at least the protection covers communings within the marriage and would not cover information received whilst a fiancée.
I thought that in such cases the law used to be that wives could not be compelled to testify against their husbands hence the need to make it explicit that this is no longer the law.
I'm not aware of any law stating that wives cannot testify against husbands over fraud, for instance. (I may be wrong on this, though.) To be honest, some of the most interesting whistleblowing cases were often from pissed off partners dobbing their husbands in .....
A spouse is always a competent witness so they can dob their spouse in without difficulty and there is an oddity in that they are compellable by the defence but they are not, AIUI, compellable by the Crown except where there is violence against them, a child or in respect of a sexual offence. Of course a co-accused is not compellable either unless they have already pleaded guilty.
I am having to brush up on all this stuff because I am delighted to say that I have just been appointed a part time Advocate Depute and will hopefully be prosecuting cases in the High Court quite soon.
On topic, I think OGH might be getting a tad too excited.
I'd want more than 19/1 on the LDs for C&A too.
You're in luck. The LibDems have drifted to 20/1 (or 21 in Betfair-speak) since this thread started. 10/1 is the most you'll get from the conventional bookmakers, with the Conservatives 1/25 generally.
Up north in Batley & Spen, it is still 8/15 Con, 13/8 Labour.
It'd need to be 50/1 or greater.
The LDs are a busted flush and this isn't the 1990s anymore.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
It is Carrie who I feel sorry for. I don't doubt that she has fallen in love with a serial betrayer who has already done the dirty on her and will do so again. She doesn't strike me as simple, she knows this anyway, knows it will end in acrimony but hopes against hope that This Time will be different.
She doesn't strike me as simple, she knows this anyway, knows it will end in alimony but hopes against hope that This Time will be paid.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Tottsly agree. Everyone loves a wedding. And he is entitled to some time off now to spend with his wife and family.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
You should write for Private Eye with that razor sharp sarcasm.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Are you sure @Cyclefree? I am not an English lawyer but the CPS website says that a spouse is only compellable by the prosecution in cases that are concerned with:
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to the spouse or civil partner; An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; An alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or Attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
Nothing about wallpaper there. That said, in Scotland at least the protection covers communings within the marriage and would not cover information received whilst a fiancée.
Is there a possibly distinction between "cannot be compelled to testify", and "can be prevented from testifying (by their spouse)"?
Without knowing anything about it, one can imagine that the latter might once have been the long abandoned reality, whereas the former might have stuck around.
Oh yes, the privilege is that of the potential spouse, not of the spouse accused so the spouse accused cannot object to the other giving evidence should they choose to do so.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Bless. I suspect you have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both doubt expert analysis and are prepared to make up your own rules.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
So you're allowed to question experts (in fact it is "necessary") but you're not allowed to doubt their analysis if you consider their answers unsatisfactory?
Question is what do you do if you doubt the analysis?
Questioning the analysis, particularly if you have the ear of someone in power, is one thing. As we saw last March, when a quick calculation of the consequences of herd immunity by infection showed what a calamity that would be. (If 50 million people are going to get infected over 8 months, half a million will die and the NHS will rapidly run out of everything, including Nightingales.) So the policy changed.
Saying I don't care what the state has concluded, I'm following my own conscience/thinking is another matter. It can be honourable to engage in civil disobedience. But when there are a lot of people who are still unprotected, or have limited protection, it can be thought of as more than a bit selfish.
My son is now about 2.5 hours into Cummings' evidence. He is finding it fascinating, not so much for the political tittle tattle but for the analysis of how governments work (or don't) and why their decision making processes are flawed. I really must find the time myself.
I am surprised, however, that it has cut through with the general public in the way that Opinium have apparently found. It will be interesting to see if this is a blip or a change in the weather.
Yes, that's what I said at the time. The Cummings testimony was fascinating and gripping for students of the machinery of government, less so for the 'he said/she said' elements.
It was comments by yourself and a few others that got me to encourage him to do so. It genuinely seems one of the best insights into the actual operation of the modern state that we have had for a long time. For someone who will be studying politics as a part of his degree in the Autumn it is required viewing I think.
One point not commented on is that Cummings' testimony that Boris and Number 10 were overwhelmed by three simultaneous problems – the pandemic, the Middle East, and Carrie – rather undermines the centralised "war room" model Cummings was trying to impose.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Tottsly agree. Everyone loves a wedding. And he is entitled to some time off now to spend with his wife and family.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
You should write for Private Eye with that razor sharp sarcasm.
What? 🤔. What wrong with you people on here recently.
I was just quoting from the Book of Common Prayer, and explaining the Church’s very basis and support for marriage.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Tottsly agree. Everyone loves a wedding. And he is entitled to some time off now to spend with his wife and family.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
Meanwhile, in truly desperate news, the fast sinking Starmer is trying to blame the inevitable third wave and and possibly watering down of Freedom Day on mistakes Boris has made.
Err what mistakes?
Is this a parody post? If it is, it' is very good.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Bless. I suspect you have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both doubt expert analysis and are prepared to make up your own rules.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
So you're allowed to question experts (in fact it is "necessary") but you're not allowed to doubt their analysis if you consider their answers unsatisfactory?
Question is what do you do if you doubt the analysis?
Questioning the analysis, particularly if you have the ear of someone in power, is one thing. As we saw last March, when a quick calculation of the consequences of herd immunity by infection showed what a calamity that would be. (If 50 million people are going to get infected over 8 months, half a million will die and the NHS will rapidly run out of everything, including Nightingales.) So the policy changed.
Saying I don't care what the state has concluded, I'm following my own conscience/thinking is another matter. It can be honourable to engage in civil disobedience. But when there are a lot of people who are still unprotected, or have limited protection, it can be thought of as more than a bit selfish.
Hmm, but what if the experts disagree? If some experts (eg. those leading the response in another country) declare that those who are fully vaccinated pose no risk to others, but those leading the response in this country take a different stance?
There is also, frankly, the issue that many of the approaches in this country are not guided primarily by actual danger of engaging in certain activities, but a belief that uniformity of approach and simplicity of messaging should trump actual scientific evidence. Things like the rule of six, 2/3/4 household meet ups etc. Although of course this arguably weakens the case for doing your own thing if you understand that.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
According to Roman Catholic doctrine Boris has never been married before, as none of his previous marriages took place in a Roman Catholic church or cathedral in accordance with Catholic doctrine
On topic, I think OGH might be getting a tad too excited.
I'd want more than 19/1 on the LDs for C&A too.
You're in luck. The LibDems have drifted to 20/1 (or 21 in Betfair-speak) since this thread started. 10/1 is the most you'll get from the conventional bookmakers, with the Conservatives 1/25 generally.
Up north in Batley & Spen, it is still 8/15 Con, 13/8 Labour.
It'd need to be 50/1 or greater.
The LDs are a busted flush and this isn't the 1990s anymore.
Labour will hold Batley and Spen and the Tories will hold Chesham and Amersham in my view, albeit with narrow majorities in both cases
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Maybe, but bluntly, and with all respect to the side for whom it's the first occasion, it is hard to develop a reaction after the second occasion for the other.
I've got my father's 4th wedding this week. Fine lady, but it's not a very unique day.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Tottsly agree. Everyone loves a wedding. And he is entitled to some time off now to spend with his wife and family.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
Meanwhile, in truly desperate news, the fast sinking Starmer is trying to blame the inevitable third wave and and possibly watering down of Freedom Day on mistakes Boris has made.
Err what mistakes?
Is this a parody post? If it is, it' is very good.
It is - normally i am very good in spotting internet sarcasm/irony a mile off, but even i almost had doubts about this one
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Bless. I suspect you have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both doubt expert analysis and are prepared to make up your own rules.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
So you're allowed to question experts (in fact it is "necessary") but you're not allowed to doubt their analysis if you consider their answers unsatisfactory?
Question is what do you do if you doubt the analysis?
Questioning the analysis, particularly if you have the ear of someone in power, is one thing. As we saw last March, when a quick calculation of the consequences of herd immunity by infection showed what a calamity that would be. (If 50 million people are going to get infected over 8 months, half a million will die and the NHS will rapidly run out of everything, including Nightingales.) So the policy changed.
Saying I don't care what the state has concluded, I'm following my own conscience/thinking is another matter. It can be honourable to engage in civil disobedience. But when there are a lot of people who are still unprotected, or have limited protection, it can be thought of as more than a bit selfish.
The point is that it has not been proven that serious hospitalisations are increasing and the NHS is under threat
The case has to be made and at present the media are obsessed with the zero covid brigade which will see us in lockdowns indefinitely
To take the public with you, you have to provide convincing evidence that is the case which it has not
My son is now about 2.5 hours into Cummings' evidence. He is finding it fascinating, not so much for the political tittle tattle but for the analysis of how governments work (or don't) and why their decision making processes are flawed. I really must find the time myself.
I am surprised, however, that it has cut through with the general public in the way that Opinium have apparently found. It will be interesting to see if this is a blip or a change in the weather.
Yes, that's what I said at the time. The Cummings testimony was fascinating and gripping for students of the machinery of government, less so for the 'he said/she said' elements.
It was comments by yourself and a few others that got me to encourage him to do so. It genuinely seems one of the best insights into the actual operation of the modern state that we have had for a long time. For someone who will be studying politics as a part of his degree in the Autumn it is required viewing I think.
One point not commented on is that Cummings' testimony that Boris and Number 10 were overwhelmed by three simultaneous problems – the pandemic, the Middle East, and Carrie – rather undermines the centralised "war room" model Cummings was trying to impose.
The other problem was that a centralised model like that is very dependent upon there being a decision maker at the pinnacle of the structure. Boris's illness, which Cummings confirmed had been life threatening and the consequential effects of long Covid were clearly an even larger issue than was let on at the time resulting in a huge loss of momentum and direction. Although Raab did get some praise for the way that he filled in its just not the same if the PM is returning.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Maybe, but bluntly, and with all respect to the side for whom it's the first occasion, it is hard to develop a reaction after the second occasion for the other.
I've got my father's 4th wedding this week. Fine lady, but it's not a very unique day.
Following the brief reference to best man's speeches last night, i wonder if they become harder or easier for repeat weddings? I guess a lot depends on how much you can get the wife to buy into the jokes...
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Tottsly agree. Everyone loves a wedding. And he is entitled to some time off now to spend with his wife and family.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
You should write for Private Eye with that razor sharp sarcasm.
What? 🤔. What wrong with you people on here recently.
I was just quoting from the Book of Common Prayer, and explaining the Church’s very basis and support for marriage.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
According to Roman Catholic doctrine Boris has never been married before, as none of his previous marriages took place in a Roman Catholic church or cathedral in accordance with Catholic doctrine
So by this logic, his four children by Marina are illegitimate. That will hack off some people.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Tottsly agree. Everyone loves a wedding. And he is entitled to some time off now to spend with his wife and family.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
Meanwhile, in truly desperate news, the fast sinking Starmer is trying to blame the inevitable third wave and and possibly watering down of Freedom Day on mistakes Boris has made.
Err what mistakes?
Is this a parody post? If it is, it' is very good.
It is - normally i am very good in spotting internet sarcasm/irony a mile off, but even i almost had doubts about this one
What’s gone wrong with PB. It’s become the most cynical, Godless place on earth. The only thing in your hearts is desire to take us back to the chaos of the nature state, without any responsibilities or limitations on yourselves only which create fairness and freedom!
Samael and his daughter will judge you! Samael and his daughter will judge you!
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
According to Roman Catholic doctrine Boris has never been married before, as none of his previous marriages took place in a Roman Catholic church or cathedral in accordance with Catholic doctrine
So by this logic, his four children by Marina are illegitimate. That will hack off some people.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
The cynical view of the wedding as a dead cat does not really work because if anything, it underlines Cummings' charge that Boris was distracted by his romance with Carrie from taking key pandemic decisions.
Maybe Johnson married her quickly so she can't give evidence against him. If that is a thing in real life and not just on American TV.
That rule was abolished a long time ago. I suspect she's as hard as nails and had no intention of ending up as another discarded mistress with a child.
Are you sure @Cyclefree? I am not an English lawyer but the CPS website says that a spouse is only compellable by the prosecution in cases that are concerned with:
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to the spouse or civil partner; An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; An alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or Attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
Nothing about wallpaper there. That said, in Scotland at least the protection covers communings within the marriage and would not cover information received whilst a fiancée.
I thought that in such cases the law used to be that wives could not be compelled to testify against their husbands hence the need to make it explicit that this is no longer the law.
I'm not aware of any law stating that wives cannot testify against husbands over fraud, for instance. (I may be wrong on this, though.) To be honest, some of the most interesting whistleblowing cases were often from pissed off partners dobbing their husbands in .....
I am having to brush up on all this stuff because I am delighted to say that I have just been appointed a part time Advocate Depute and will hopefully be prosecuting cases in the High Court quite soon.
My uncle got married three times. The joke was three tries for a welshman. My auntie thought that very unfair as he had been rather let down by his previous wives.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
According to Roman Catholic doctrine Boris has never been married before, as none of his previous marriages took place in a Roman Catholic church or cathedral in accordance with Catholic doctrine
So by this logic, his four children by Marina are illegitimate. That will hack off some people.
Who inherits his debts?
I was thinking he could appeal to the Pope for his unjust persecution by the British state/courts in being required to support his former partners.
It is possible this poll has identified a Cummings effect but it has not been evident in the other polls released since Cummings appearance so it is prudent to wait and see if this is a trend away from HMG
The critical factor will be Boris's decision on opening the economy and we presently have a media obsessed with the zero covid narrative and simply not giving airtime to any other contrary views
As I said yesterday I intend acting in a responsible manner but will make my own judgment on these matters
It is time for HMG to step aside and trust the public as I fear the public are at the point where compliance to HMG edicts is going to evaporate anyway
You can only keep the public prisoner to restrictions for so long and I believe the dam is about to burst, if it has not done so already
The only way HMG will gain the trust of the public is if they provide detailed hospitalisation figures and clearly demonstrate the vaccine status of the patients and the media stops succumbing to and giving their platform to those who want to eliminate the disease
So, in short, you’re intending to take the law into your own hands because you think you know best. I trust you’re happy for everyone else to do the same.
Haven’t we seen people take similar positions repeatedly through the pandemic, whilst exponential growth quietly does its work undoing gains.
Everyone is fed up with Covid, but it’s premature to say it’s all done and dusted and to go rogue.
I have been vaccinated along with millions of others and unless there is real evidence to justify this present zero covid mantra then yes, I and millions of others willl decide our own freedoms in a responsible way
So you, in your infinite wisdom, get to define what is ‘responsible’ for the management of this virus basically because your now are a bit fed up.
Read what I said
Unless their is real evidence the NHS is being overwhelmed and the vaccine is not effective then yes, we cannot be held ransom to something which is not much more serious than flu in those contracting it
Move over Whitty, Big G knows best, he’ll judge the evidence and tell us what to do.
I am not telling anyone what to do
I am making the point about myself and others must take their own responsibility
All through this pandemic there have been armchair experts claiming they know best, that they are responsible and speak for the majority. By and large they are total nutters.
I am sad to see you want to join their ranks because, like the rest of us, are fed up. We are so close to getting out of this hell, now is not the time to go rogue.
BigG in his post set criteria that he wants to see to be prevented from taking his own decisions. It is entirely reasonable for individual "armchair generals" to question why they should continue to obey the rules laid down by our superiors, when the proclaimed reasons for them are so far away from those we were given when we entered this whole thing. He is prepared to continue to follow if shown how by doing so is justified. But when hints are made that restrictions should continue to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by non-Covid patients then it is entirely reasonable to ask questions about what is happening...
Questioning experts is essential. Making up your own rules based on an amateur interpretation of data and Internet discussions, which is what BigG was actually saying, is something very different.
No it is not
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
I’ve read your posts, I understand your position. I think you are wrong. You’re a big boy, you’ll live.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am nothing like Piers Corbyn and that is disingenuous of you
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Bless. I suspect you have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both doubt expert analysis and are prepared to make up your own rules.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
So you're allowed to question experts (in fact it is "necessary") but you're not allowed to doubt their analysis if you consider their answers unsatisfactory?
Question is what do you do if you doubt the analysis?
Questioning the analysis, particularly if you have the ear of someone in power, is one thing. As we saw last March, when a quick calculation of the consequences of herd immunity by infection showed what a calamity that would be. (If 50 million people are going to get infected over 8 months, half a million will die and the NHS will rapidly run out of everything, including Nightingales.) So the policy changed.
Saying I don't care what the state has concluded, I'm following my own conscience/thinking is another matter. It can be honourable to engage in civil disobedience. But when there are a lot of people who are still unprotected, or have limited protection, it can be thought of as more than a bit selfish.
The honourability or otherwise of an incident of civil disobedience seems to vary in almost exact proportion with the extent to which the observer of the civil disobedience agrees with the cause of the disobeyer.
can't help cynically thinking that the wedding was timed to diffuse fall-out from the Cummings appearance - afterall, "everything is political" - it would be interesting to see when it was booked in!
I'm not sure about that. A greater slice of the public are likely to take more interest in the wedding than Cummings ramblings, particularly how Boris managed to get married in a Catholic church and whether/ if he's reconverted and what that might mean.
It's a simple human interest story.
It has pissed me off mightily. Not the fact of them getting married. But the way the Catholic Church, the church I have on and off belonged to all my life, seems to have abandoned all pretence of believing in the 10 Commandments, especially the 6th one.
We're all sinners deserving of mercy blah, blah, I know all that. But this same church, not content with overlooking the most revolting crimes against children by some of its priests, says that my gay son, born like that and, according to church doctrine, made in the image of God, is "disordered" and "intrinsically immoral".
Well stuff that, frankly. If the church going to opine on immorality, it needs to take a good hard look at itself. I know who in that little group listed above is immoral and it isn't my son.
According to Roman Catholic doctrine Boris has never been married before, as none of his previous marriages took place in a Roman Catholic church or cathedral in accordance with Catholic doctrine
So by this logic, his four children by Marina are illegitimate. That will hack off some people.
Who inherits his debts?
Spike Milligan, in Puckoon, had a character who died, and in his will, left all his money to himself.
1. This new ship. Great! Don't knock work being unveiled to "reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry". Probably worth pointing out though that we have been a major sea-faring power for a long time. The notion that it will be "distinct from any previous national flagship reflecting the UK's new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents" is laughable. Year Zero was not 1996. Or 1973. We have spent centuries as an "independent trading nation" and have a long history of sending in flagships to "seize" opportunities.
2. The Unite plot to spread itself through the party and oust Iain Duncan Starmer. If Unite was a force for good or change then perhaps I would get their plan. Instead Unite could get done under RICO laws in America and wasted £2m of member's money in an absurd legal action against a Labour MP.
I keep making this point that its now absolutely clear that the hard left and the centre right can no longer occupy the same party. Their sole aim seems to be war against the other. The Labour brand is beyond tarnished anyway, let the nutters have it, and take the majority of members, MPs and the party machine away to do something relevant.
3. Congratulations to Boris and Carrie! Boris better get writing some more books to pay for the inevitable divorce when he shags someone else again.
I was about to like your post and you spoil it with your last few words unfortunately
Come on Big G he is a serial shagger. He has *already* transgressed against Carrie. OK she's forgiven him this time but history and his nature suggest there will be other transgressions and he tends to go to far and get binned off.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
Maybe, just maybe, you could give him some slack on his wedding day
Tottsly agree. Everyone loves a wedding. And he is entitled to some time off now to spend with his wife and family.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
Meanwhile, in truly desperate news, the fast sinking Starmer is trying to blame the inevitable third wave and and possibly watering down of Freedom Day on mistakes Boris has made.
Err what mistakes?
Is this a parody post? If it is, it' is very good.
It is - normally i am very good in spotting internet sarcasm/irony a mile off, but even i almost had doubts about this one
What’s gone wrong with PB. It’s become the most cynical, Godless place on earth.
Comments
Opinium 28th April (height of Wallpapergate & Cummings leaks):
The Conservative lead drops from 11 points to 5 in a week as Boris Johnson’s ratings drop as well
The Conservatives have 42% of the vote vs. 37% for Labour.
Followed immediately by:
Opinium 14th May (after real votes cast in Hartlepool and local elections):
Labour woes propel Conservatives to 13 point lead
After tightening to a 5 point lead in our final national poll before the local elections, the Conservatives have 44% of the vote (+2) vs. 31% (-6) for Labour.
Political amnesia is a real thing, it seems...
I don't care about the PM and his latest wife. I do care very much indeed about the church's appalling treatment and description of gay people - not least because of its utter hypocrisy on the topic given how many priests are themselves gay and because the condemnation is so out of line with Jesus's teachings. It's simple bigotry and there should be no place for it in any church worthy of the name.
1) A strategy where you take action and then pause to see the impact for a few weeks is entirely sensible, but requires patience and discipline.
2) Secondly, the new hotpots are poorly understood and a concern, so some caution is entering into the plan. That sounds sensible too.
Either way, if we start having folk doing their own thing as BigG advocates we lose our ability to assess (1) and take unnecessary risks with (2).
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-jens-spahn-coronavirus-test-centers-alleged-fraud/
I believe the same suspicions are sometimes voiced in Northern Ireland.
In the Church of England you can find whatever level you want from Anglo Catholic to high church with incense to ordinary BCP to common worship and happy clappy.
And therefore, they seem bluntly to be little better than people making their own assessments on a case by case basis.
And that, along with Cummings and sheer frustration, is why people are doing so.
I have explained my position to you in detail
It is reasonable and most probably nearer to public opinion than you may think
Didn't him sitting in the European Parliament and taking the Whore's money, though. Another grade "A" hypocrite.
I have no doubt there are a whole bunch of people out there who agree with you. Folks like Piers Corbyn.
I am surprised, however, that it has cut through with the general public in the way that Opinium have apparently found. It will be interesting to see if this is a blip or a change in the weather.
At some point soon I hope to reacquaint myself with my waist .......
"It has the advantage that the devil, if you meet him later, will be an improvement."
I absolutely 100% support vaccinations nor do I share his politics
Everyone vulnerable is vaccinated. What about the young?
Everyone is vaccinated, what if a variant comes along, better wait until boosters have been given.
Boosters have been given. It's now winter flu season, imagine how bad things will be with Covid and flu.
Etc.
It would have been cheaper and safer for him to to have married. And then we have the hilarity of the Catholic Church marrying him for his 3rd nuptuals.
On testing in March-April 2020 source says "There was a choice with the number of tests available - [hospital] admissions or discharges, and the choice was admissions. That choice was made by PHE and NHSEI. Everyone knew it."
https://twitter.com/Davewwest/status/1398908915409207301?s=20
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to the spouse or civil partner;
An allegation of an assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years;
An alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or
Attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/competence-and-compellability#:~:text=A witness is compellable if,be required to give evidence.&text=The only exception relates to,Spouses or Civil Partners, below.
Nothing about wallpaper there. That said, in Scotland at least the protection covers communings within the marriage and would not cover information received whilst a fiancée.
Up north in Batley & Spen, it is still 8/15 Con, 13/8 Labour.
Which is the point. You, naturally, think your judgement is sound and are being reasonable and fair. Maybe it is. But then again, accordingly to your logic, everyone else out there should be free to make their own mind up. So I have to trust you, Piers and everyone else’s ability to analyse and form conclusions on complex data and act in a rational way. Yet this is demonstrably not something where the wisdom of crowds work.
Personally I prefer the current sensible incremental approach that has delivered benefits.
The Tories literally sacrificed themselves on a hill to defend Cummings. He is clearly a man of significant import who was personally hired, trusted and vouched for by the Prime Minister. If what he says now is the bitter lies of a lunatic then it really shines a light on the competence of the people who hired him, trusted him and said absurd things to defend him.
Or we have the other take. That what he says is largely true albeit filtered through a bit of "I got the sack and need to vent" emotion. In which case for the first time we have the view from directly inside the government machine from the most trusted and valued adviser that the PM is unfit, that everyone lies, that it is a pit of dysfunctional incompetence.
With so much of what happens with public opinion vs this government being counter-factual to political norms, it isn't impossible for this to cut through where nothing else does. It shouldn't! But as "it shouldn't but" is the normal state of affairs, who knows?
Without knowing anything about it, one can imagine that the latter might once have been the long abandoned reality, whereas the former might have stuck around.
I made my position quite clear and it is time to stand up and demand the evidence before meekly going into further lockdown
I'm not aware of any law stating that wives cannot testify against husbands over fraud, for instance. (I may be wrong on this, though.) To be honest, some of the most interesting whistleblowing cases were often from pissed off partners dobbing their husbands in .....
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has married his fiancee Carrie Symonds in a secret ceremony at Westminster Cathedral, it has been reported.
The wedding was held in front of close friends and family on Saturday, according to several newspapers.
Downing Street has declined to comment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57296472
The story has been updated within the last half hour, and does report musicians being seen leaving Downing Street (via the front entrance so they can be photographed!).
Town cricket club has a friendly this afternoon, and the bar will be open.
I am having to brush up on all this stuff because I am delighted to say that I have just been appointed a part time Advocate Depute and will hopefully be prosecuting cases in the High Court quite soon.
Rammed, I'm told, for 20/20 games, at least at the start of that particular part of the season.
It’s brilliant he is no longer living in sin. A wedding is where your commitment to someone is so much stronger and meaningful for saying it publicly not just across a pillow, so it’s a huge credit to Boris and his character he has done this.
Meanwhile, in truly desperate news, the fast sinking Starmer is trying to blame the inevitable third wave and and possibly watering down of Freedom Day on mistakes Boris has made.
Err what mistakes?
But lockdown has not been great news and as there are lots of mountains roundabout I want to get much fitter than I am. Many more evenings working at Daughter's pub will help. There's a reason why that is a young person's game but the number of steps you walk in an evening is amazing.
2) I think many of us would be content to be patient to wait for a given date for reopening if we trusted that commitment to be honoured. But we do not. So we cannot be happy to wait.
The LDs are a busted flush and this isn't the 1990s anymore.
That better?
Questioning the analysis, particularly if you have the ear of someone in power, is one thing. As we saw last March, when a quick calculation of the consequences of herd immunity by infection showed what a calamity that would be. (If 50 million people are going to get infected over 8 months, half a million will die and the NHS will rapidly run out of everything, including Nightingales.) So the policy changed.
Saying I don't care what the state has concluded, I'm following my own conscience/thinking is another matter. It can be honourable to engage in civil disobedience. But when there are a lot of people who are still unprotected, or have limited protection, it can be thought of as more than a bit selfish.
I was just quoting from the Book of Common Prayer, and explaining the Church’s very basis and support for marriage.
There is also, frankly, the issue that many of the approaches in this country are not guided primarily by actual danger of engaging in certain activities, but a belief that uniformity of approach and simplicity of messaging should trump actual scientific evidence. Things like the rule of six, 2/3/4 household meet ups etc. Although of course this arguably weakens the case for doing your own thing if you understand that.
I've got my father's 4th wedding this week. Fine lady, but it's not a very unique day.
The case has to be made and at present the media are obsessed with the zero covid brigade which will see us in lockdowns indefinitely
To take the public with you, you have to provide convincing evidence that is the case which it has not
Samael and his daughter will judge you! Samael and his daughter will judge you!