Gardenwalker said:

I love reading the Blyton (and Lewis, and Dahl) books to my daughter as I get to put on all the silly voices.

Only last night we started “Prince Caspian” and Peter and Lucy were complaining about the queerest feelings they had ever known.

OldKingCole said:

Gardenwalker said:

Random question, since there are all sorts of mad experts on this site.

How difficult would it be to create an permanent island at Dogger Bank?

Probably easier than at Goodwin Sands, and there was a suggestion about that some time ago

Wikipedia says: The water depth ranges from 15 to 36 metres (50 to 120 ft), about 20 metres (65 ft) shallower than the surrounding sea.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

It's starting to smell pretty bad, isn't it?

Iraqi WMD bad?

I suspect if the government had been more honest and said we need four more weeks to vaccinate the young because the delta variant needs two jabs to be properly effective they would have saved them from a world of pain.

Especially if later down the line there's a vaccine evading variant, that needs a booster.

The problem with that argument is the government and scientists have framed lockdown measures as necessary to stop the NHS from toppling under the pressure of COVID patients. It's a fair argument that hits home with the majority of the country. In fact it's why I changed my own position on lockdown in November despite loathing the idea of another one.

Young people aren't going to cause the NHS to fall down, trying to reframe the reason for lockdown measures as protecting individuals rather than the NHS would get called out as an unnecessary delay because individuals have agency to stay at home.

It would also have worked better if we'd ordered more Pfizer and Moderna doses for May and June delivery. As it stands we're waiting until mid July for Pfizer to increase their delivery of vaccines to us so until then we're using up existing stock from the 40m order (about 5m left I think) and the 17m Moderna order. If we're waiting for young people to be double jabbed then just on a delivery schedule that puts us at the first week of August plus 10 days for distribution.

No, the only way to keep the lockdown measures was the route the scientists picked. Present a bunch of dodgy data models to unscientific and data illiterate politicians and scare them with big numbers. If the argument falls apart afterwards it doesn't matter because they've already got their extension.

Malmesbury said:

OldKingCole said:

Gardenwalker said:

Random question, since there are all sorts of mad experts on this site.

How difficult would it be to create an permanent island at Dogger Bank?

Probably easier than at Goodwin Sands, and there was a suggestion about that some time ago

Wikipedia says: The water depth ranges from 15 to 36 metres (50 to 120 ft), about 20 metres (65 ft) shallower than the surrounding sea.

A suggestion from an engineer in the oil world that I used to know. Instead of pilling up sand to do such things, build a shorter, flatter version of the Stratfyord platforms.

Imagine a concrete base - a flat rectangle of cells. Columns connecting to a flat top. The whole constructed in concrete 10 of metres thick. Each one 800 by 300 foot, say. With the columns x100 feet high. Think a table, but with a top at both ends of the legs....

Build them in a dock, float them out, sail them into position and sink them in position. They won't shift, since they will weigh 100ks of tons. Add the units until you have what you need....

Gardenwalker said:

Random question, since there are all sorts of mad experts on this site.

How difficult would it be to create an permanent island at Dogger Bank?

Gardenwalker said:

ping said:

Gardenwalker said:

Random question, since there are all sorts of mad experts on this site.

How difficult would it be to create an permanent island at Dogger Bank?

Dunno, but reading the wiki, apparently there was an earthquake underneath dogger bank in 1931 that measured 6.1. I didn’t realise we’d ever had such a major earthquake.

Wikipedia is brilliant, isn’t it?

Indeed.

I discovered yesterday that a barleycorn is a third of an inch. Perhaps this is common knowledge but it was new to me.

I have a hankering to start casually referencing them in everyday conversation.

“Can you move the window up a barleycorn?”

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

OldKingCole said:

Gardenwalker said:

Random question, since there are all sorts of mad experts on this site.

How difficult would it be to create an permanent island at Dogger Bank?

Probably easier than at Goodwin Sands, and there was a suggestion about that some time ago

Wikipedia says: The water depth ranges from 15 to 36 metres (50 to 120 ft), about 20 metres (65 ft) shallower than the surrounding sea.

Surely, therefore, national prestige calls for the development of “Brexit island”, a permanent settlement with red phone boxes, pre-decimal currency, and black and white television?

Dogger Bank looks very big on a map. Plenty of room.

Depends how much dogging you are anticipating.

CarlottaVance said:

"They are shitting bricks" - a Tory local govt source on the mood in CCHQ over the Chesham and Amersham by-election today. Lib Dems quietly confident of scoring an upset in the safe seat.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1405436342050476032?s=20

Stocky said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

OldKingCole said:

Gardenwalker said:

Random question, since there are all sorts of mad experts on this site.

How difficult would it be to create an permanent island at Dogger Bank?

Probably easier than at Goodwin Sands, and there was a suggestion about that some time ago

Wikipedia says: The water depth ranges from 15 to 36 metres (50 to 120 ft), about 20 metres (65 ft) shallower than the surrounding sea.

Surely, therefore, national prestige calls for the development of “Brexit island”, a permanent settlement with red phone boxes, pre-decimal currency, and black and white television?

Dogger Bank looks very big on a map. Plenty of room.

Depends how much dogging you are anticipating.

I knew one of you would go there. My money was on ydoethur .

Pulpstar said:

"quietly confident" is normally a euphemism for "we know we've won" in by-elections.

CarlottaVance said:

Missed it! We missed breaking the London-Glasgow record by - wait for it - 21 seconds. A temporary speed limit at Carstairs cost us 90 seconds, it was a known risk but they thought we could still do it. But it’s still the fastest train I’ve ever taken from London to Scotland!

https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1405521288127418380?s=20

Not bad going since they were limited to 125, unlike the ATP....

maaarsh said:

Pulpstar said:

"quietly confident" is normally a euphemism for "we know we've won" in by-elections.

They must be morally opposed to gambling then.

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I must admit growing up in the 90s I did find the Secret Seven and Famous Five at times hard to read.

Not because of any -isms, but because some of the language used and the world it depicts was quite alien to me.

I knew what neither "ginger beer" was nor what a "lashing" was, for example, but also the portrayal of figures like Quentin's complete indifference to his own child, nieces and nephews.

I remember reading the Jennings books with similar bewilderment in the Seventies. I enjoyed the tales but couldn't really understand why the boys had to stay in school all the time. I was unclear what the difference between Boarding School and Borstal.

I did 2 years at boarding school. Not sure I worked that out either.

No boarding school for me and I'm glad about that. I associate them with claustrophobia and oppression. I think it influenced Orwell's work. Imagine the future, Eric, being flicked across the arse with a wet towel - forever.

Orwell said otherwise, he minimised the public school experience as 5 years in a bath of lukewarm snobbery.

ETA if you want to look for trauma in the private education system, look at the prep schools. Being sent away from home at 8 is worlds away from being sent away at 13, and the real monsters among the staff gravitate towards the younger age group.

That's incredible, isn't it. Sent away at 8. Mind you, my wife was at 10, and after a rough 1st year she remembers the rest of her schooling with great fondness. Best time of her life, she says, even including being married to me.

slade said:

Pulpstar said:

"quietly confident" is normally a euphemism for "we know we've won" in by-elections.

My favourite tweet from the by-election from a Lib Dem activist - Voter came out of polling station and shouts over " I've just voted Lib Dem for the first time ever - and it didn't hurt a bit".

Gardenwalker said:

Stuartinromford said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

"They are shitting bricks" - a Tory local govt source on the mood in CCHQ over the Chesham and Amersham by-election today. Lib Dems quietly confident of scoring an upset in the safe seat.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1405436342050476032?s=20

Tories need to get less spooked about losses and potential losses. Christ, they get spooked from a smaller poll lead, never mind falling behind.

And that's why Johnson will never be a Great PM.

Maggie would have known what to do with a huge poll lead- go harder on the trickier bits of her agenda, because she knew she was right.

Johnson seems to need the lead as ongoing affirmation.

It was notable that in the WhatsApp conversations, Boris seemed more interested in polling and focus groups than actual facts from the coalface.

kle4 said:

The great thing about by-elections is how much overreaction there is, even when we know better. Whether its a safe seat staying safe, or a party losing expectedly, we can rely on parties to totally lose their shit about the result.

Stuartinromford said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

"They are shitting bricks" - a Tory local govt source on the mood in CCHQ over the Chesham and Amersham by-election today. Lib Dems quietly confident of scoring an upset in the safe seat.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1405436342050476032?s=20

Tories need to get less spooked about losses and potential losses. Christ, they get spooked from a smaller poll lead, never mind falling behind.

And that's why Johnson will never be a Great PM.

Maggie would have known what to do with a huge poll lead- go harder on the trickier bits of her agenda, because she knew she was right.

Johnson seems to need the lead as ongoing affirmation.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

MarqueeMark said:

Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.

She never did

Oh really?

Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?

Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?

How is it a false comparison?

The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.

If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.

I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK.
The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.

Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.

Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.

Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.

Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.

We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.

Logic fail here. If being able to leave a relationship is meaningless, it follows that a relationship where you can't leave is no more captive than one where you can. Which is a clear nonsense. Being able to leave is fundamentally different to being unable to leave, whether you choose to leave or not.

Being able to leave is an important theoretical right, but unless you exercise it, it isn't very meaningful.

Saying that UvdL had no constitutional role in the UK, since we could leave, is like saying that your boss at work has no role in your worklife since you can quit if you want to do so.

It's not a theoretical right it's an actual right. This is the case whether you exercise it or not. And having this right is different to not having it. This is specifically the point I needed to clarify.

The right is meaningless unless you're prepared to exercise it. If you're not willing to do so, then its only theoretical.

If you work for an employer where you are in your own eyes the hardest working employee there, but you are paid less than your colleagues, you don't feel like you are treated with respect, and if you bring concerns to your employer they say "yes but you need the job don't you?" and then adds mockingly "You know where the door is" - then do you think "oh well, I can leave if I want to, so everything's fine I should stay in this job" or do you think "screw this, I'm off"

The fact you can leave is not a reason to stay. The reason to stay should be that it is worth staying.

I'm not saying it's a reason to stay. I'm simply debunking your assertion that an option to do something is meaningless unless you do it. The correct assertion is that it's meaningless if you can't do it. The convoluted workplace analogy isn't helpful. In EU terms, we have left and others haven't. We decided as a free sovereign nation that the cons of membership outweighed the pros. Others haven't reached this conclusion as yet, but they could do in the future. They have the option. The meaningful option. Their right to leave isn't meaningless just because they haven't left. That's a clear nonsense.

You're missing the point.

Absolutely they have the right to leave, but unless or until they exercise that right, the EU and UvdL or her successors is part of their constitutional setup.

Just as Westminster and Boris or his successors is part of Northern Ireland or Scotland's constitutional setup even though we explicitly recognise Northern Ireland's right to self-determination and to leave via a United Ireland if they ever choose to exercise that right.

I can't be missing the point since I'm merely debunking your nonsense assertion that an option is meaningless unless you exercise it. It was a low bar and I've hopped over it quite comfortably. The rest - eg to what extent Brussels rather than Westminster was our effective government when we were in the EU - would require another tumble entirely. And nobody wants to see that right now. Not today of all days.

You have missed the point.

The claim, mady by Scott, was that the EU President never had a constitutional role in the UK.

The fact we could leave was meaningless to that claim.

It was true, it was meaningful in the fact that we did leave, but until we left it didn't change the fact that she did have a role.

I think you missed the point Philip. I gently mocked your silly equivalence between Ursula van der Leyen who is not President of the EU as you suggested, but President of the European Commission and POTUS. I was polite about it last time, but now I will be less so. It was one of the most stupid equivalences I have ever seen.

Just to remind you, you stated : "Oh really?

Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?"

Durrrrr!!!!

beentheredonethat said:

slade said:

Pulpstar said:

"quietly confident" is normally a euphemism for "we know we've won" in by-elections.

My favourite tweet from the by-election from a Lib Dem activist - Voter came out of polling station and shouts over " I've just voted Lib Dem for the first time ever - and it didn't hurt a bit".

And where shall we file that?

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

MarqueeMark said:

Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.

She never did

Oh really?

Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?

Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?

How is it a false comparison?

The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.

If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.

I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK.
The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.

Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.

Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.

Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.

Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.

We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.

Logic fail here. If being able to leave a relationship is meaningless, it follows that a relationship where you can't leave is no more captive than one where you can. Which is a clear nonsense. Being able to leave is fundamentally different to being unable to leave, whether you choose to leave or not.

Being able to leave is an important theoretical right, but unless you exercise it, it isn't very meaningful.

Saying that UvdL had no constitutional role in the UK, since we could leave, is like saying that your boss at work has no role in your worklife since you can quit if you want to do so.

It's not a theoretical right it's an actual right. This is the case whether you exercise it or not. And having this right is different to not having it. This is specifically the point I needed to clarify.

The right is meaningless unless you're prepared to exercise it. If you're not willing to do so, then its only theoretical.

If you work for an employer where you are in your own eyes the hardest working employee there, but you are paid less than your colleagues, you don't feel like you are treated with respect, and if you bring concerns to your employer they say "yes but you need the job don't you?" and then adds mockingly "You know where the door is" - then do you think "oh well, I can leave if I want to, so everything's fine I should stay in this job" or do you think "screw this, I'm off"

The fact you can leave is not a reason to stay. The reason to stay should be that it is worth staying.

I'm not saying it's a reason to stay. I'm simply debunking your assertion that an option to do something is meaningless unless you do it. The correct assertion is that it's meaningless if you can't do it. The convoluted workplace analogy isn't helpful. In EU terms, we have left and others haven't. We decided as a free sovereign nation that the cons of membership outweighed the pros. Others haven't reached this conclusion as yet, but they could do in the future. They have the option. The meaningful option. Their right to leave isn't meaningless just because they haven't left. That's a clear nonsense.

You're missing the point.

Absolutely they have the right to leave, but unless or until they exercise that right, the EU and UvdL or her successors is part of their constitutional setup.

Just as Westminster and Boris or his successors is part of Northern Ireland or Scotland's constitutional setup even though we explicitly recognise Northern Ireland's right to self-determination and to leave via a United Ireland if they ever choose to exercise that right.

I can't be missing the point since I'm merely debunking your nonsense assertion that an option is meaningless unless you exercise it. It was a low bar and I've hopped over it quite comfortably. The rest - eg to what extent Brussels rather than Westminster was our effective government when we were in the EU - would require another tumble entirely. And nobody wants to see that right now. Not today of all days.

You have missed the point.

The claim, mady by Scott, was that the EU President never had a constitutional role in the UK.

The fact we could leave was meaningless to that claim.

It was true, it was meaningful in the fact that we did leave, but until we left it didn't change the fact that she did have a role.

I think you missed the point Philip. I gently mocked your silly equivalence between Ursula van der Leyen who is not President of the EU as you suggested, but President of the European Commission and POTUS. I was polite about it last time, but now I will be less so. It was one of the most stupid equivalences I have ever seen.

Just to remind you, you stated : "Oh really?

Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?"

Durrrrr!!!!

In case you're too thick to understand the analogy, perhaps let's dumb it down for you.

Why do you think von der Leyen was photographed with Biden at the G7? 🤔

Stuartinromford said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

"They are shitting bricks" - a Tory local govt source on the mood in CCHQ over the Chesham and Amersham by-election today. Lib Dems quietly confident of scoring an upset in the safe seat.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1405436342050476032?s=20

Tories need to get less spooked about losses and potential losses. Christ, they get spooked from a smaller poll lead, never mind falling behind.

And that's why Johnson will never be a Great PM.

Maggie would have known what to do with a huge poll lead- go harder on the trickier bits of her agenda, because she knew she was right.

Johnson seems to need the lead as ongoing affirmation.

OldKingCole said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I must admit growing up in the 90s I did find the Secret Seven and Famous Five at times hard to read.

Not because of any -isms, but because some of the language used and the world it depicts was quite alien to me.

I knew what neither "ginger beer" was nor what a "lashing" was, for example, but also the portrayal of figures like Quentin's complete indifference to his own child, nieces and nephews.

I remember reading the Jennings books with similar bewilderment in the Seventies. I enjoyed the tales but couldn't really understand why the boys had to stay in school all the time. I was unclear what the difference between Boarding School and Borstal.

I did 2 years at boarding school. Not sure I worked that out either.

No boarding school for me and I'm glad about that. I associate them with claustrophobia and oppression. I think it influenced Orwell's work. Imagine the future, Eric, being flicked across the arse with a wet towel - forever.

Orwell said otherwise, he minimised the public school experience as 5 years in a bath of lukewarm snobbery.

ETA if you want to look for trauma in the private education system, look at the prep schools. Being sent away from home at 8 is worlds away from being sent away at 13, and the real monsters among the staff gravitate towards the younger age group.

That's incredible, isn't it. Sent away at 8. Mind you, my wife was at 10, and after a rough 1st year she remembers the rest of her schooling with great fondness. Best time of her life, she says, even including being married to me.

Sister-in-law looks back on her boarding school fondly. None of her children went, though.

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

"They are shitting bricks" - a Tory local govt source on the mood in CCHQ over the Chesham and Amersham by-election today. Lib Dems quietly confident of scoring an upset in the safe seat.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1405436342050476032?s=20

Tories need to get less spooked about losses and potential losses. Christ, they get spooked from a smaller poll lead, never mind falling behind.

And that's why Johnson will never be a Great PM.

Maggie would have known what to do with a huge poll lead- go harder on the trickier bits of her agenda, because she knew she was right.

Johnson seems to need the lead as ongoing affirmation.

Completely agree. The poll lead insulates the government from taking unpopular decisions - such as saying publicly that some old people will die of COVID but that's going to become the cost of having a free society rather than pretend that there's a way out of this with no one every dying of it and still having a free society.

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic.

I'm desperately trying to work out a headline for the day Hancock is sacked/moved to another job.

HanCock Out and Cummings.

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

When can we expect a result in C&A?

I saw a random tweet this morning suggested that the Cons were utterly shitting themselves.

I’m still predicting a Con win, but I admit to being a bit nervous.

It would be genuinely brilliant if the Lib Dems pull this off. If Labour manage to hold as well in B&S Boris might actually have to take notice of what the country is saying rather than his cabal of lockdown ultra scientists.

Taz said:

Stocky said:

Weddings: apologies if already posted but I’m catching up on this one.

As with care home relaxations fancy headlines are followed days later with less-than-rosy rules.

The headline is that weddings are allowed from 21 June with more than 30 guests.

Now published, the rules include:

• Couples face £10,000 fines if they fail to fill out Wedding Day risk assessment

• Face masks must be work when indoors

• No food or drink should be consumed as a part of the ceremony (unless required for the purposes of solemnisation).

• Dancing is advised against

• Dancefloors must be closed

• The married couple are allowed a first dance (where if dance floors are closed?)

• The married couple may kiss but face coverings must be worn

• Speeches are to be held outdoors or in well-ventilated areas, using a PA system where possible.

• Buffet meals are banned

• No singing allowed

• Guest must sit round tables of no more than six people – and must remain seated when eating and drinking

• Guest books are not encouraged but if used hands must be sanitised before and after each use.

• Neither testing nor vaccination status can be used to deviate from these measures.

Here in UK, 2021.

(I may have made one of the rules up.)

The 10K fine ?

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Random question, since there are all sorts of mad experts on this site.

How difficult would it be to create an permanent island at Dogger Bank?

The Chinese don't seem to have any problem creating artificial islands.

contrarian said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

When can we expect a result in C&A?

I saw a random tweet this morning suggested that the Cons were utterly shitting themselves.

I’m still predicting a Con win, but I admit to being a bit nervous.

It would be genuinely brilliant if the Lib Dems pull this off. If Labour manage to hold as well in B&S Boris might actually have to take notice of what the country is saying rather than his cabal of lockdown ultra scientists.

Really?

Labour are lockdownier than the tories. How does a labour victory hasten the end of the lockdown ultras? How does a lib dem victory in C&A?

Answer: They don't. All these guys are on the same page, essentially.

Stocky said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm at the phase where I'm online shopping for the things I'm going to buy with my winnings when the Lib Dems win C&A.

Same here, though I did lay some of it off by backing Tories at 1.16 this morning. (I'd previously laid them at 1.06 and backed the LDs at 20).

londonpubman said:

If LDs win Chesham and Amersham then yes it's an embarrassment for the Government. and a job as an MP for 3 years for the winning LD.

But it's a by election. In the end they don't matter. Boris still has an 80 seat majority.

maaarsh said:

Scott_xP said:

Stuartinromford said:

Johnson seems to need the lead as ongoing affirmation.

Because he knows everything he does is a mistake.

Like Brexit.

Of all the monomania's possible, this must be the dullest.

alex_ said:

contrarian said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

When can we expect a result in C&A?

I saw a random tweet this morning suggested that the Cons were utterly shitting themselves.

I’m still predicting a Con win, but I admit to being a bit nervous.

It would be genuinely brilliant if the Lib Dems pull this off. If Labour manage to hold as well in B&S Boris might actually have to take notice of what the country is saying rather than his cabal of lockdown ultra scientists.

Really?

Labour are lockdownier than the tories. How does a labour victory hasten the end of the lockdown ultras? How does a lib dem victory in C&A?

Answer: They don't. All these guys are on the same page, essentially.

Because to be successful the Conservatives need to retain their own voters? And if they go on strike in protest...

contrarian said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

When can we expect a result in C&A?

I saw a random tweet this morning suggested that the Cons were utterly shitting themselves.

I’m still predicting a Con win, but I admit to being a bit nervous.

It would be genuinely brilliant if the Lib Dems pull this off. If Labour manage to hold as well in B&S Boris might actually have to take notice of what the country is saying rather than his cabal of lockdown ultra scientists.

Really?

Labour are lockdownier than the tories. How does a labour victory hasten the end of the lockdown ultras? How does a lib dem victory in C&A?

Answer: They don't. All these guys are on the same page, essentially.

Stocky said:

Taz said:

Stocky said:

Weddings: apologies if already posted but I’m catching up on this one.

As with care home relaxations fancy headlines are followed days later with less-than-rosy rules.

The headline is that weddings are allowed from 21 June with more than 30 guests.

Now published, the rules include:

• Couples face £10,000 fines if they fail to fill out Wedding Day risk assessment

• when indoors

• No food or drink should be consumed as a part of the ceremony (unless required for the purposes of solemnisation).

• Dancing is advised against

• Dancefloors must be closed

• The married couple are allowed a first dance (where if dance floors are closed?)

• The married couple may kiss but face coverings must be worn

• Speeches are to be held outdoors or in well-ventilated areas, using a PA system where possible.

• Buffet meals are banned

• No singing allowed

• Guest must sit round tables of no more than six people – and must remain seated when eating and drinking

• Guest books are not encouraged but if used hands must be sanitised before and after each use.

• Neither testing nor vaccination status can be used to deviate from these measures.

Here in UK, 2021.

(I may have made one of the rules up.)

The 10K fine ?

No - that's true

Nigelb said:

Stocky said:

Taz said:

Stocky said:

Weddings: apologies if already posted but I’m catching up on this one.

As with care home relaxations fancy headlines are followed days later with less-than-rosy rules.

The headline is that weddings are allowed from 21 June with more than 30 guests.

Now published, the rules include:

• Couples face £10,000 fines if they fail to fill out Wedding Day risk assessment

• when indoors

• No food or drink should be consumed as a part of the ceremony (unless required for the purposes of solemnisation).

• Dancing is advised against

• Dancefloors must be closed

• The married couple are allowed a first dance (where if dance floors are closed?)

• The married couple may kiss but face coverings must be worn

• Speeches are to be held outdoors or in well-ventilated areas, using a PA system where possible.

• Buffet meals are banned

• No singing allowed

• Guest must sit round tables of no more than six people – and must remain seated when eating and drinking

• Guest books are not encouraged but if used hands must be sanitised before and after each use.

• Neither testing nor vaccination status can be used to deviate from these measures.

Here in UK, 2021.

(I may have made one of the rules up.)

The 10K fine ?

No - that's true

"Face masks must be work" ?

it's either that or the kissing.