The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
I can't say, but not all NGOs are legally charities these days. From memory War on Want isn't.
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
Oxfam etc are charities and they've been very vocal earlier this week.
As for the RNLI choosing to be careful, that's a choice if so and not a ban.
Seems clear that its not the RNLI speaking about this, its people trying to abuse their name to invent a stick to hit the government with.
"We are a life-saving charity and, under maritime law and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (Solas), our volunteer lifeboat crews will always go to the aid of those in danger at sea"
Yes, I respect what they have to say. Don't you?
There's not a single objection there from the RNLI, instead the critical quotes come from serial critics of the government like George Peretz QC.
What critical quote from the RNLI do you have? Any or none?
Did you read the preceding text? Context is all #
"The UK’s leading maritime rescue charity has vowed to keep saving anyone in peril at sea despite provisions in draft legislation that barristers say could threaten volunteers with life imprisonment for picking up asylum seekers.
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution made the statement after immigration barristers warned that Clause 38 of the nationality and borders bill, published on Tuesday, potentially criminalised rescues of asylum seekers if they were deemed to constitute “facilitating” their arrival in the UK."
That is as close to direct opposition to gmt policy as one can gert without saying it out front. I suspect the journo was being careful.
Bollocks, the preceding paragraph literally says the criticism comes from "barristers" or specificially "immigration barristers" like George Peretz QC quoted later in the article etc not from the RNLI.
Do you think the RNLI is an organisation of "barristers" or "immigration barristers" or not?
Those paragraphs are not relevant to what the RNLI itself has to say, which is not a story.
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
Must say I went just before pandemic because I had 20 minutes before an appointment, was starving and it was there. Was not quick. Took over 15 minutes, was not tasty, and was not cheap. Fail to see the attraction. Coffee is good though. Better than the coffee chains.
I rarely eat in chain fast food places, but pre pandemic i take my friends kids to events / their sporting competitions from time to time and am told they can have a McDonald's etc....I just get a coffee, but I am always shocked how expensive a bill you can quickly rack up in these places. I often come away thinking for a couple of quid more we could have eaten somewhere rather nice.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Yes. It is interesting, asking people in the family, why the UK?
- A large chunk is English is spoken as the second language of even the moderately educated around the world. - A large chunk is that the UK is, interestingly seen as immigrant friendly. Don't laugh. France apparently has a pretty bad reputation... - Jobs. The perception is that France, Spain etc... jobs are reserved for the locals. - Immigrants who made it. The UK is perceived as being much more diverse than say, Germany. While we don't see it, the perception that tons of people in media, parliament etc are non-white/non-british-origin resonates. - Another chunk is films/media - UK appears pretty frequently.
Asylum seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country."
Non-asylum seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK."
An issue not acknowledged by anyone in this debate is that Asylum seeker and Economic Migrant are not exclusive properties.
From what I have seen, it is perfectly possible to be partly both. Indeed that is rather common. The "100% I will be killed in my country" is rare. "My people have a shitty life in country X, and I would like to get a job in a rich country" is much more common.
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Then they can apply for a visa.
But visa applications for "distant family" are not easy so they might be rejected.
Yup parnets names 'Adam & Eve' doesn't quite cut it with the HO.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
Must say I went just before pandemic because I had 20 minutes before an appointment, was starving and it was there. Was not quick. Took over 15 minutes, was not tasty, and was not cheap. Fail to see the attraction. Coffee is good though. Better than the coffee chains.
Here in my little corner of the Mediterranean in SE Spain you pay €1.50 for good coffee and it comes with a glass of water, a glass of orange juice, a lttle plate of donuts and a seat by the sea! I do love SE Spain!
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Yes. It is interesting, asking people in the family, why the UK?
- A large chunk is English is spoken as the second language of even the moderately educated around the world. - A large chunk is that the UK is, interestingly seen as immigrant friendly. Don't laugh. France apparently has a pretty bad reputation... - Jobs. The perception is that France, Spain etc... jobs are reserved for the locals. - Immigrants who made it. The UK is perceived as being much more diverse than say, Germany. While we don't see it, the perception that tons of people in media, parliament etc are non-white/non-british-origin resonates. - Another chunk is films/media - UK appears pretty frequently.
Asylum seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country."
Non-asylum seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK."
An issue not acknowledged by anyone in this debate is that Asylum seeker and Economic Migrant are not exclusive properties.
From what I have seen, it is perfectly possible to be partly both. Indeed that is rather common. The "100% I will be killed in my country" is rare. "My people have a shitty life in country X, and I would like to get a job in a rich country" is much more common.
As what would a refugee from a grievous famine in their own country be classified?
Do they come under naval discipline for such things as mutiny, compulsory jabs, etc.?
Definitely not in peacetime. Quite what will happen in a shooting war is anyone's guess as we've never had an RN ship with this many civvies on it before. On Invincible we had none and on Ark Royal we had one who was a tailor from Hong Kong.
They did have dockyard maties on PoW (the previous one) who must have had a bad fright when they had a run in with Bismark. But proibably not nearly so many, plus it was a panic move when finishing off PoW and no intention for a World Tour there. (They were better off out of it when that did happen ...)
During the Falklands war, I seem to recall that a bunch of laundry staff from Hong Kong were on some of the ships hit and became casualties?
Oh yes, and did not a NAAFI canteen manager end up firing the AA MGs at the Argies?
But those are very small contingents in support toles in proportion to the - what was it? 25% or something that we are hearing about today.
[Edit: Chinese laundrymen and NAAFI managhers were routine civvies on RN after the war IIRC.)
In fact, IIRC, the presences of Chinese laundrymen among the casualties contributed to a change in policy - ending their use.
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
On 3 - it wouldn't be Katie Hopkins or co getting upset and launching the case. It could be anyone who understands the law and wishes to knock the Tory party as the story comes out.
I commented below that even if the Police decided not to do something, you may end up with a private criminal prosecution simply to check what the law actually was (and embarrass Boris and co at the same time).
Separately and offtopic - did you see the link I posted yesterday regarding a podcast talking about Tether https://t.co/5FrMy23HAU?amp=1 . Knowing your love of cryptocurrencies I expect the whole hour will be justifiable as work time.
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
That's truly horrendous. He speaks very good English for a Russian, and he's managed to imitate the "English racist" look very well.
A perfect example of the target voter that Patel and Johnson encouraged by saying they understood why this "patriot" was booing taking the knee.
Racists do not like being called racist. Taking the knee calls them out. So they boo.
But that doesn't really tie up with the evidence.
Over the past 20+ years, football has been pushing through its "Kick It Out" / Kick Racism out of football. While there was opposition at the start from racists, certainly for the past number of years, supporters have not booed or complained about the campaign, at least not in public. The inference is that the message was accepted - at it should be.
The booing has tied in with the whole taking the knee thing. Taking the knee is associated with BLM and a lot of that has to do with BLM aligning itself with that symbol. As an influencer, many marketers and agency professionals can learn a lot from BLM when it comes to brand and aligning the message, they are geniuses. But when it comes to the issue of racism, BLM is risking making things worse because it is politicising what should be a just and natural cause - i.e. kicking out racism - by tying its own agenda into the cause.
Saying if you are anti-racist, you must support BLM is the equivalent of being told in the 1960s that if you agree with Civil Rights for Black people, you must support the Black Panthers. No, you don't. BLM has a whole political and cultural agenda that goes way beyond equality (hence why we now have equity).
One final point. If the UK is supposed to be a place full of racists and bigots, then what good has all the messaging, training, framing of the debate etc done over the past 30 years? And how can we be assured that the answer lies in more similar messaging, training etc if the previous efforts have apparently failed?
At least the UK's reputation as an evil, racist country means no asylum seeker or economic migrant would ever traipse through the entire continent of Europe and then hazard the dangers of a sea crossing in order to get here. Would they?.....
I have always wondered what was so wrong with France that people will do anything to leave France and come here.
I believe that someone once posted, rather approvingly, of a statement by a certain famous tennis player, while they were drinking together, that the problem with France was the French.
Are not many of the current migrants related, even if distantly to people in UK already. So they're trying to join their families.
Yes. It is interesting, asking people in the family, why the UK?
- A large chunk is English is spoken as the second language of even the moderately educated around the world. - A large chunk is that the UK is, interestingly seen as immigrant friendly. Don't laugh. France apparently has a pretty bad reputation... - Jobs. The perception is that France, Spain etc... jobs are reserved for the locals. - Immigrants who made it. The UK is perceived as being much more diverse than say, Germany. While we don't see it, the perception that tons of people in media, parliament etc are non-white/non-british-origin resonates. - Another chunk is films/media - UK appears pretty frequently.
Asylum seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country."
Non-asylum seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK."
An issue not acknowledged by anyone in this debate is that Asylum seeker and Economic Migrant are not exclusive properties.
From what I have seen, it is perfectly possible to be partly both. Indeed that is rather common. The "100% I will be killed in my country" is rare. "My people have a shitty life in country X, and I would like to get a job in a rich country" is much more common.
As what would a refugee from a grievous famine in their own country be classified?
Well, add a sprinkle of the fact that many famines are actually caused by deliberate policy. The famous Ethiopian famine was part of a civil war....
So "I am starving at home, and the government is doing it to my people deliberately."
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
What is interesting is that the medical "system" in the UK seems to be, sometimes much more.... investigative? than in other countries.
I have pointed out such things to my American relatives - they (and the CDC) come back to "Recommended by the manufacturer and licensed for" and anything else is Rank Heresy......
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
Interesting. I seem to recall it was said that ordinarily you would go for a 12 week interval, but it was tested with a three week interval because, obviously, they wanted to get the vaccine approved asap.
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
Must say I went just before pandemic because I had 20 minutes before an appointment, was starving and it was there. Was not quick. Took over 15 minutes, was not tasty, and was not cheap. Fail to see the attraction. Coffee is good though. Better than the coffee chains.
I rarely eat in chain fast food places, but pre pandemic i take my friends kids to events / their sporting competitions from time to time and am told they can have a McDonald's etc....I just get a coffee, but I am always shocked how expensive a bill you can quickly rack up in these places. I often come away thinking for a couple of quid more we could have eaten somewhere rather nice.
My objection to McDonalds since they introduced the new ordering service is firstly the food is slow, the wait is just ages and ages to get the food; whereas it used to be available immediately. Secondly, it is not hot. I've had several lukewarm burgers and cold chips. It used to be hot. The advantages they had have been lost. I don't care what rubbish excuses they come up with to justify bad service during the pandemic; the place is going downhill, before you factor in the reality that the food is terrible from a health perspective. And it is £5-£7 for a meal. And you can't get a seat under the social distancing rules and associated covid theatrics.
I recently switched from Mc Donalds to supermarket sandwich deals - £3 -£4 for a meal deal and you can get much better food, and it is quick.
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
What is interesting is that the medical "system" in the UK seems to be, sometimes much more.... investigative? than in other countries.
I have pointed out such things to my American relatives - they (and the CDC) come back to "Recommended by the manufacturer and licensed for" and anything else is Rank Heresy......
Yes, the UK approach does seem to be quite distinctive and (as far as I can see as a non-expert) very well thought out and grounded in a very practical application of the scientific data. It's no doubt helped by the fact that we seem to have some of the world's best statistical data on the real-world rollout.
Father-in-law was described as a faddy eater; never ate meat, never ate potatoes other than as mash or chips and dozens of other things, including, notably, pasta. How he managed in the war, during his time in the RAF we don't know. We knew Alzheimers had really got him when we arrived in the Care Home one day to find him, in his late 70's, eating spaghetti on toast! No-one else in the family took after him except his eldest gt-grandson (whom he never knew) who as a child was incredibly awkward. His mother, our daughter tried everything but he just wouldn't. However, he improved when he went to Uni and had to cook for himself and now he's married he and his wife seem to eat totally normally
Our little 'un is a bit of a faddy eater - we have enough variety to give him a different meal each day of the week, but the menu is the same week after week. He does eat fruit though, which is a relief. It used to be a nightmare taking him anywhere, as he would only eat ham sandwiches.
Talking to other parents, he isn't as bad as some - one friend of his only eats chicken nuggets and potato waffles, and only drinks water. Not chips. Not pasta. Not salad. He seems fine on it. Other kids apparently eat anything put down in front of them.
Nigel Farage made great play recently of the fact that whilst out in the Channel he came across a dinghy with a couple of men in it. They were obviously in trouble so they took them aboard and brought them back to shore.
Would Farage now be facing potential life imprisonment?
Well he is making a good living out of exploiting illegal migrants...
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
What is interesting is that the medical "system" in the UK seems to be, sometimes much more.... investigative? than in other countries.
I have pointed out such things to my American relatives - they (and the CDC) come back to "Recommended by the manufacturer and licensed for" and anything else is Rank Heresy......
Yes, the UK approach does seem to be quite distinctive and (as far as I can see as a non-expert) very well thought out and grounded in a very practical application of the scientific data. It's no doubt helped by the fact that we seem to have some of the world's best statistical data on the real-world rollout.
I think it is also cultural - the "but that is breaking the manufacturers instructions" seems to be a common theme.
Interestingly, the booster jab thing is causing a bit of storm in the US
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
with regard to the RNLI problem, on reflection it looks more and more like the problem may rest with Priti Patel. She acts from the gut and tries to drive through what she thinks is right, and has had a good run, with a bit of luck. However, she has never come across as being particularly appreciative of the nuances of her position, in the manner that Amber Rudd and Theresa May were.
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
Must say I went just before pandemic because I had 20 minutes before an appointment, was starving and it was there. Was not quick. Took over 15 minutes, was not tasty, and was not cheap. Fail to see the attraction. Coffee is good though. Better than the coffee chains.
I rarely eat in chain fast food places, but pre pandemic i take my friends kids to events / their sporting competitions from time to time and am told they can have a McDonald's etc....I just get a coffee, but I am always shocked how expensive a bill you can quickly rack up in these places. I often come away thinking for a couple of quid more we could have eaten somewhere rather nice.
My objection to McDonalds since they introduced the new ordering service is firstly the food is slow, the wait is just ages and ages to get the food; whereas it used to be available immediately. Secondly, it is not hot. I've had several lukewarm burgers and cold chips. It used to be hot. The advantages they had have been lost. I don't care what rubbish excuses they come up with to justify bad service during the pandemic; the place is going downhill, before you factor in the reality that the food is terrible from a health perspective. And it is £5-£7 for a meal. And you can't get a seat under the social distancing rules and associated covid theatrics.
I recently switched from Mc Donalds to supermarket sandwich deals - £3 -£4 for a meal deal and you can get much better food, and it is quick.
Yeah. It isn't fast. I remember thinking I could have gone into a cafe and ordered a full English and it would have been quicker. As well as cheaper and more nutritious. But speed used to be the USP. Now it isn't.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
I can't say, but not all NGOs are legally charities these days. From memory War on Want isn't.
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
Oxfam etc are charities and they've been very vocal earlier this week.
As for the RNLI choosing to be careful, that's a choice if so and not a ban.
Seems clear that its not the RNLI speaking about this, its people trying to abuse their name to invent a stick to hit the government with.
"We are a life-saving charity and, under maritime law and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (Solas), our volunteer lifeboat crews will always go to the aid of those in danger at sea"
Yes, I respect what they have to say. Don't you?
There's not a single objection there from the RNLI, instead the critical quotes come from serial critics of the government like George Peretz QC.
What critical quote from the RNLI do you have? Any or none?
Did you read the preceding text? Context is all #
"The UK’s leading maritime rescue charity has vowed to keep saving anyone in peril at sea despite provisions in draft legislation that barristers say could threaten volunteers with life imprisonment for picking up asylum seekers.
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution made the statement after immigration barristers warned that Clause 38 of the nationality and borders bill, published on Tuesday, potentially criminalised rescues of asylum seekers if they were deemed to constitute “facilitating” their arrival in the UK."
That is as close to direct opposition to gmt policy as one can gert without saying it out front. I suspect the journo was being careful.
That may well be a problem for their management and Trustees. Supporting illegal work does leave them open to liability too.
Of course, it is not just the RNLI that needs legal exemption, but also independent lifeboats such as on the IoW, and also anyone else in command of a boat who encounters anyone in distress from fishermen, to merchant marine to pleasure boat skippers.
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
The "Never mind the law, trust what the government says" line, which gets an airing from certain commentators here, seems a little inadequate. About a government that only yesterday reneged on its manifesto and legal commitments on aid.
with regard to the RNLI problem, on reflection it looks more and more like the problem may rest with Priti Patel. She acts from the gut and tries to drive through what she thinks is right, and has had a good run, with a bit of luck. However, she has never come across as being particularly appreciative of the nuances of her position, in the manner that Amber Rudd and Theresa May were.
It's almost as if it is a complex issue. If it were easy it would have been solved.
Greens in turmoil as co-leader Sian Berry quits over 'inconsistencies' around trans issues...
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
Greens in turmoil as co-leader Sian Berry quits over 'inconsistencies' around trans issues...
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
What is interesting is that the medical "system" in the UK seems to be, sometimes much more.... investigative? than in other countries.
I have pointed out such things to my American relatives - they (and the CDC) come back to "Recommended by the manufacturer and licensed for" and anything else is Rank Heresy......
Yes, the UK approach does seem to be quite distinctive and (as far as I can see as a non-expert) very well thought out and grounded in a very practical application of the scientific data. It's no doubt helped by the fact that we seem to have some of the world's best statistical data on the real-world rollout.
I think it is also cultural - the "but that is breaking the manufacturers instructions" seems to be a common theme.
Interestingly, the booster jab thing is causing a bit of storm in the US
Following the 'recommended rules' & AZT panic explains why barely 50% of 65-9 year olds are double jabbed - way less than those aged 50-60. Meanwhile Delta is rampant among the under 30s as the big August cross-generational family holibobs loom.....
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
I think that all rather misses the point that the government doesn't want the RNLI picking up migrants in the channel. That's the purpose of this policy. They will now not do it.
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
Must say I went just before pandemic because I had 20 minutes before an appointment, was starving and it was there. Was not quick. Took over 15 minutes, was not tasty, and was not cheap. Fail to see the attraction. Coffee is good though. Better than the coffee chains.
I rarely eat in chain fast food places, but pre pandemic i take my friends kids to events / their sporting competitions from time to time and am told they can have a McDonald's etc....I just get a coffee, but I am always shocked how expensive a bill you can quickly rack up in these places. I often come away thinking for a couple of quid more we could have eaten somewhere rather nice.
My objection to McDonalds since they introduced the new ordering service is firstly the food is slow, the wait is just ages and ages to get the food; whereas it used to be available immediately. Secondly, it is not hot. I've had several lukewarm burgers and cold chips. It used to be hot. The advantages they had have been lost. I don't care what rubbish excuses they come up with to justify bad service during the pandemic; the place is going downhill, before you factor in the reality that the food is terrible from a health perspective. And it is £5-£7 for a meal. And you can't get a seat under the social distancing rules and associated covid theatrics.
I recently switched from Mc Donalds to supermarket sandwich deals - £3 -£4 for a meal deal and you can get much better food, and it is quick.
Yeah. It isn't fast. I remember thinking I could have gone into a cafe and ordered a full English and it would have been quicker. As well as cheaper and more nutritious. But speed used to be the USP. Now it isn't.
They used to have racks of pre-made burgers up and when you ordered one they'd grab it off the shelf and give it to you.
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
What is interesting is that the medical "system" in the UK seems to be, sometimes much more.... investigative? than in other countries.
I have pointed out such things to my American relatives - they (and the CDC) come back to "Recommended by the manufacturer and licensed for" and anything else is Rank Heresy......
Yes, the UK approach does seem to be quite distinctive and (as far as I can see as a non-expert) very well thought out and grounded in a very practical application of the scientific data. It's no doubt helped by the fact that we seem to have some of the world's best statistical data on the real-world rollout.
I think it is also cultural - the "but that is breaking the manufacturers instructions" seems to be a common theme.
Interestingly, the booster jab thing is causing a bit of storm in the US
Following the 'recommended rules' & AZT panic explains why barely 50% of 65-9 year olds are double jabbed - way less than those aged 50-60. Meanwhile Delta is rampant among the under 30s as the big August cross-generational family holibobs loom.....
It actually doesn't.
I'm in the 45-49 group and been double jabbed. Those aged 65-9 qualified for their second jabs months ago...
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
Also strikingly different to the experience of protection in USA and Israel that vaccinated with Pfizer and Moderna with a 4 week gap.
We don't know that yet....they are just getting the Delta variant wave now.
We had that first report from Israel saying protection was only ~60% for Pfizer against Indian variant, but it was a really small sample size. And we all remember the South African first study of AZN vs their variant saying it was useless, but it turned out is isn't. Law of small numbers and all that.
Greens in turmoil as co-leader Sian Berry quits over 'inconsistencies' around trans issues...
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
They should get Caroline Lucas back. Recycling.
The Trans agenda is an impossible issue to square in a way that would please anyone - everytime anyone brings it up I escape at the first opportunity.
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
IANAE, but geology can almost always be engineered out by altering the boring machine or tunnelling technique. This is one of the reasons why I think Musk's Boring Company is on a hiding to nothing: they seem to want one type of boring machine for any type of ground.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
Rather than very woolly duty of care why not have a law that says any social network of any appreciable size must be able to verify the owner of the account. If there are some countries where that is difficult... don't show their "contribution" in our country. When it suits tech companies they can do it. Try opening an account on AirBnB. Or open an account for one of those electric scooters. Or a bank account. Would so many people be so keen to racially abuse our football team if they knew plod could be knocking the next day?
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
I think that all rather misses the point that the government doesn't want the RNLI picking up migrants in the channel. That's the purpose of this policy. They will now not do it.
And how are they to distinguish in a storm in the middle of the night? Or they to go, demand ID, then either rescue or let sink?
Rather than very woolly duty of care why not have a law that says any social network of any appreciable size must be able to verify the owner of the account. If there are some countries where that is difficult... don't show their "contribution" in our country. When it suits tech companies they can do it. Try opening an account on AirBnB. Or open an account for one of those electric scooters. Or a bank account. Would so many people be so keen to racially abuse our football team if they knew plod could be knocking the next day?
I guess the question is, where do you draw the line? Would we have to give our personal details for Vanilla forums?
Personally I'm a libertarian and I'd encourage people to vote with their feet. Don't like Facebook or Twitter? Don't use them.
Rather than very woolly duty of care why not have a law that says any social network of any appreciable size must be able to verify the owner of the account. If there are some countries where that is difficult... don't show their "contribution" in our country. When it suits tech companies they can do it. Try opening an account on AirBnB. Or open an account for one of those electric scooters. Or a bank account. Would so many people be so keen to racially abuse our football team if they knew plod could be knocking the next day?
Anonymous accounts do however have a purpose - a lot of posters on here only post because it's to some extent anonymous.
Greens in turmoil as co-leader Sian Berry quits over 'inconsistencies' around trans issues...
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
To lose one leader is unfortunate, to lose two is careless.
Greens in turmoil as co-leader Sian Berry quits over 'inconsistencies' around trans issues...
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
The "Never mind the law, trust what the government says" line, which gets an airing from certain commentators here, seems a little inadequate. About a government that only yesterday reneged on its manifesto and legal commitments on aid.
A government that puts itself above the law is a danger to every citizen.
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
Also strikingly different to the experience of protection in USA and Israel that vaccinated with Pfizer and Moderna with a 4 week gap.
We don't know that yet....they are just getting the Delta variant wave.
In 3 months, I think we will be able to say more.
None of the county-operated hospitals in Los Angeles County have admitted a single COVID-19 patient who was fully vaccinated.
"At this point this really is a preventable illness, a preventable infection," a county health official said, according to NBC LA
I posted this already down thread....they are a hostage to fortune. How many areas of a country or a whole countries made stupid claims about COVID, we are beating it, not a problem here....we are now down to literally China...New Zealand...erhhh Nigeria?....maybe South Korea sorta, who can say we got this under control.
Again law of small numbers....they only have a small number of cases at the moment, and Delta variant isn't at the 80-90% levels it is here yet.
I am not placing too much weight in either Israel saying it doesn't work as well (as our numbers say it does at the moment) or one county in the US saying things ok here working perfectly.
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
That literally doesn't make any sense, at least making things worse in terms of cases. More second doses now that our first dose programme is finished takes people up from around 50% efficacy against infection to around 95% efficacy against infection in the very short term. If may cause issues down the line in November but we can deal with that by extending a booster programme to all ages and give under 40s a booster shot of Novavax. In late October and November. We could easily do all 15m under 40s within 3 weeks by then given expected supply.
I agree with much (almost all) of what Cyclefree says but bad laws to "send signals" that make good headlines, rather than fix problems, massively predate this administration stretching all the way back to Blair.
That doesn't excuse what's being done now but to heap opprobrium for all of it just on Boris isn't accurate. Politicians have found it's worked for them in managing problems and perceptions, so they've kept doing it.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
The RNLI is not “complaining”
A lot of people who hate the government are whipping up a lot of noise.
The RNLI was asked for a statement. They said ( I paraphrase) “Meh. We’re going to carry on rescuing people, so whatever”
Hardly surprising since that would be POLITICAL and charities aren't allowed to be political these days by law, no?
Oh really?
What was all that coming from aid charities earlier this week literally forecasting children will die and all sorts of other bollocks if they weren't so generously funded by the taxpayer anymore?
I can't say, but not all NGOs are legally charities these days. From memory War on Want isn't.
In any case RNLI is in a difficult position given the demographic (and location!) of many of its key supporters. It has to steer a careful course.
War on Want is both a Charity and a Company Limited by Guarantee. Both are similarly regulated, and I think the main difference is the liability of "trustees" vs limited liability of Directors.
But there are plenty of charities that make political campaigns - Oxfam, for example, have been publishing weakly argued guff about so-called 'tax justice' for many years now.
They are currently waging a campaign on the suspension of Vaccine Patents, despite it being obvious that that will not make the blindest bit of difference.
Mr. Royale, this ties in with something I bang on about every so often: the terrible state of political reporting in this country which is fixated on personalities over policies and laws.
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
Very low on carb, microwaved potatoes with beans .
Of the Open venues I've been to, Royal St George's is easily my favourite. Looks like a decent strength wind coming off the North Sea, which should make things interesting.
Greens in turmoil as co-leader Sian Berry quits over 'inconsistencies' around trans issues...
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
The Greens are in the process of fluffing a big opportunity for them after an excellent set of local elections.
They do, I'm afraid, badly need to professionalise. Their leadership model just doesn't work.
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
The "Never mind the law, trust what the government says" line, which gets an airing from certain commentators here, seems a little inadequate. About a government that only yesterday reneged on its manifesto and legal commitments on aid.
Except that isn't true. The "legal commitment" gave reasons that it might not be able to be met, including financial circumstances, and said that if that was the case it gave provision for statements in Parliament to resolve it.
The financial circumstances have changed theres been a statement in Parliament and a vote to resolve it, as per the law.
No legal commitment reneged on. The law was followed.
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
IANAE, but geology can almost always be engineered out by altering the boring machine or tunnelling technique. This is one of the reasons why I think Musk's Boring Company is on a hiding to nothing: they seem to want one type of boring machine for any type of ground.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
What Musk is reaching for is automating/reducing the workforce/vertical integration. The enormous layering of contracting out the counteracting out of the contracting out that goes on in big infrastructure projects bears a striking resemblance to the organisational structure used in big aerospace.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I suggest that the 'Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture', certainly in England, is due to driving people off the land and into industrial work in the late 18th & throughout the 19th Centuries.
This is the traditional reason cited, and it certainly accounts for a lot. But it’s not the full story. Why is American food similarly “poor” when - until the later 19th century - it was fundamentally an agricultural country?
As I understand it, and I'm only an amateur historian, to some degree similar conditions applied in the US; either people 'out on the range', or crowded together in cities.
Ok what about NZ? Food growing up was abysmal. You could pretty much only buy one type of cheese.
My guess:
1. English climate 2. Protestantism 3. Industrialisation/urbanisation.
(1) and (2) conspired to create a generally sub-par Anglo food culture. (3) was the nail in the coffin from a U.K. point of view.
On the brighter side, the U.K. does good piquant sauces and pastes: think worcestershire, hot english mustard, marmite, anchovy relish.
Some say WWII rationing stuffed food up. There is a long tradition of good food in the UK... And some of it has come back.
When I grew up, sausages either came from a proper butcher or were dire, horrible things. The Yes Minister episode on the "British Offal Fat Tube" was simply true. Now you can get come quite reasonable stuff in the supermarkets...
I’m a big exponent of English food today. However, the reality is that English food has traditionally been a sub-par and long the butt of others’ jokes.
England is (was?) very good at inventing team sports, parliamentary democracy, garden design, and literature. Good sense of humour, probably to deal with class anxiety.
Not that great on on visual art, and classical music. At least compared to the neighbours.
Very poor on food.
I remember a time when "good food" was seen as effeminate and a bit French.
We took pride in its plainness as a sign of our stoicism and virility, strange as it sounds.
with regard to Mc Donalds being convenient, that is not true. It takes the same time to get the food from Mc Donalds than it does to cook a fresh stir fry, or a microwaved baked potato with beans ie about 10 minutes, both of which are options that require almost no skills or equipment and cost less than £1 per person to feed a family. I like an occasional McDonalds but it is a health and financial disaster if it is part of your everyday diet.
I find with dieting, which I do at least once a year - for me it is just a case of trying to keep going for more than a month. It helps to think of the diet only really starting until you have done 6 weeks. Otherwise the old habits return and the weight just goes back on. From experience of the people I know you need some sort of shock: ie a significant health crisis to force you to really make long term changes.
Very low on carb, microwaved potatoes with beans .
Good fibre though in the potato skin, and beans are good for both protein and soluble fibre.
The problem of obesity in the poor is very real, but much more complex than not having the money.
Cheap fatty salty sugary foods are a simple pleasure in lives with little else. It is the same reason that the poor smoke and drink more. The poverty is not just financial, though that is real, it is poverty of skills, poverty of social capital and very often poverty of ambition. Just getting through the day is often the only real target. Dead end lives need simple transient pleasures. When people have something to live for, they get the motivation to live better.
Of the Open venues I've been to, Royal St George's is easily my favourite. Looks like a decent strength wind coming off the North Sea, which should make things interesting.
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
IANAE, but geology can almost always be engineered out by altering the boring machine or tunnelling technique. This is one of the reasons why I think Musk's Boring Company is on a hiding to nothing: they seem to want one type of boring machine for any type of ground.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
What Musk is reaching for is automating/reducing the workforce/vertical integration. The enormous layering of contracting out the counteracting out of the contracting out that goes on in big infrastructure projects bears a striking resemblance to the organisational structure used in big aerospace.
I can see that, but AIUI it's not the case with actual tunnelling, which is fairly efficient.
The problem occurs with the later parts: take Crossrail, where the tunnelling went quite well, but the mess started with the fitting out. Musk is essentially ignoring this part by using the simplest possible solution inside the tunnel.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
Whatever a government may "say" in parliament is irrelevant if it doesn't find itself in the bill/act. The burden after the act comes into force then transfers to a test case in the supreme court surely. Do we really want it to have to go all the way to there?
It is absolutely relevant
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
That’s when what the government says matters
Can you provide a court judgment that backs up that assertion. Courts usually play a straight bat here and will allow the arguments of the two sides to sway the end result.
If Britgov wanted to renege on its obligation under international maritime law (Article 98 of UNCLOS, "Duty to render assistance") to assist those who are in distress at sea, wouldn't it have to notify the UN formally to that effect?
The "red meat" of letting a boatful of migrants drown is something the Powellites in this country have been slavering for for decades. (Often they will refer to Australia in this connection.) They got Brexit. They got the okay from a cabinet minister for loutishly booing the English football team for taking the knee. Drowned migrants followed by a "serves them right" statement by the prime minister may be next on the list. I have even heard some of them say that such inhumanity would be "brave".
Meanwhile Dominic Cummings says Labour could walk the next general election if they focused on addressing the problem of "violent crime". Talk about moving the Overton window...
Greens in turmoil as co-leader Sian Berry quits over 'inconsistencies' around trans issues...
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
The Greens are in the process of fluffing a big opportunity for them after an excellent set of local elections.
They do, I'm afraid, badly need to professionalise. Their leadership model just doesn't work.
I would disagree. I rather like the rather anarchic decentered nature of Green leadership. They should not copy the cult of personality that the big parties have chosen.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
Whatever a government may "say" in parliament is irrelevant if it doesn't find itself in the bill/act. The burden after the act comes into force then transfers to a test case in the supreme court surely. Do we really want it to have to go all the way to there?
It is absolutely relevant
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
That’s when what the government says matters
Can you provide a court judgment that backs up that assertion. Courts usually play a straight bat here and will allow the arguments of the two sides to sway the end result.
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
Who was attacking Rashford?
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
The "Never mind the law, trust what the government says" line, which gets an airing from certain commentators here, seems a little inadequate. About a government that only yesterday reneged on its manifesto and legal commitments on aid.
Except that isn't true. The "legal commitment" gave reasons that it might not be able to be met, including financial circumstances, and said that if that was the case it gave provision for statements in Parliament to resolve it.
The financial circumstances have changed theres been a statement in Parliament and a vote to resolve it, as per the law.
No legal commitment reneged on. The law was followed.
That presupposes the government is actually constrained by those circumstances and is disapplying its commitment to the least extent possible. It isn't. That's why it changed the law, which it has the power to do. But it's like principles. If we don't like this law, we can have others. Why would anyone believe them when even their laws aren't worth the paper they are written on?
I agree with much (almost all) of what Cyclefree says but bad laws to "send signals" that make good headlines, rather than fix problems, massively predate this administration stretching all the way back to Blair.
That doesn't excuse what's being done now but to heap opprobrium for all of it just on Boris isn't accurate. Politicians have found it's worked for them in managing problems and perceptions, so they've kept doing it.
Some of us still remember the Dangerous Dogs Act.
We might coin a name for these laws that governments seek to bring in purely for electoral posturing instead of concrete need regardless of the legal consequences. Virtue Signalling Legislation perhaps?
To feed a family of four at McDonalds costs the better part of £20 nowadays.
To go to the Co-Op, or Aldi, or Tesco's and get some fresh veg and meat and prepare a fresh meal can be done considerably cheaper.
People are buying at McDonalds and others because its convenient, not because they can't afford to cook at home.
And as people have pointed out earlier
1) People are not being taught how to cook
2) People who haven't been shown how to do things are often too scared to try to do those things themselves
3) People may not enjoy cooking and would rather watch TV - it's highly possible that cooking takes an hour and results in no thanks from the rest of the family.
You can see why people may go for the easier options.
This list applies to many other skills too, such as spelling, punctuating, or beginning to know what stuff is really about - from supermarket self-checkouts to the smartphone plague - or just making an effort to have some self-respect. This is the "deskilling of everyday life".
So I asked a friend who specialises in charity law.
She said if you wanted to damage (if not destroy) the RNLI the government's approach is a pretty good way to do so.
1) Insurance wise, unless there's a legal exemption/clarification from the government, then it triggers insurance problems, you get your insurance voided and open yourself up to huge liabilities. Check for example your own car insurance terms and conditions. As, for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol shows, what the the PM and government says and what the legal actualité.
2) Any complaint raised to the police will trigger an investigation, that could lead people being barred from carrying out rescues as the DBS check cause both the RNLI and the individual problems. Just imagine you're a teacher, banker, NHS worker, or anyone of the plethora of people who have to go through (regular) DBS checks for their day jobs. Given how slowly the police and CPS operate this process might take months if not years.
3) Remember it requires a complaint from a citizen to trigger a police investigation, so you can imagine someone like the Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, or someone whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail getting upset. That is going to lead to some serious staffing issues.
4) Point 2) and 3) Also has fundraising implications (as well as wider charity implications for the RNLI). If people start doing 3 then the Fundraising Regulator as well the Charity Commission will investigate (remember you don't need any convictions on the RNLI just the appearance of bad conduct) for those organisations to start investigating you. Things like gift aid and the whole charitable status could be at risk. If they lose gift aid status then you really are putting the lives of people at risk.
5) This is the government that is reducing judicial review, so point 1) is critical.
6) All of this could be avoided with an explicit exemption for the RNLI.
Before anyone moans about lefty lawyers, she has impeccable Conservative credentials.
The "Never mind the law, trust what the government says" line, which gets an airing from certain commentators here, seems a little inadequate. About a government that only yesterday reneged on its manifesto and legal commitments on aid.
Except that isn't true. The "legal commitment" gave reasons that it might not be able to be met, including financial circumstances, and said that if that was the case it gave provision for statements in Parliament to resolve it.
The financial circumstances have changed theres been a statement in Parliament and a vote to resolve it, as per the law.
No legal commitment reneged on. The law was followed.
That presupposes the government is actually constrained by those circumstances and is disapplying its commitment to the least extent possible. It isn't. That's why it changed the law, which it has the power to do. But it's like principles. If we don't like this law, we can have others. Why would anyone believe them when even their laws aren't worth the paper they are written on?
They haven't changed the law, that would take an Act of Parliament.
They've issued a statement within the confines of the existing law, following the procedure laid down within the existing law.
No law change has occurred. Exercising a provision of a law is not a change in the law.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
Whatever a government may "say" in parliament is irrelevant if it doesn't find itself in the bill/act. The burden after the act comes into force then transfers to a test case in the supreme court surely. Do we really want it to have to go all the way to there?
It is absolutely relevant
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
That’s when what the government says matters
Can you provide a court judgment that backs up that assertion. Courts usually play a straight bat here and will allow the arguments of the two sides to sway the end result.
Pepper (H.M.I.T.) v. Hart [1992] UKHL 3
So the RNLI or Joe Public in a boat has to pay a fortune for a defence team to confirm something that should be confirmed in the first place in Parliament?
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
IANAE, but geology can almost always be engineered out by altering the boring machine or tunnelling technique. This is one of the reasons why I think Musk's Boring Company is on a hiding to nothing: they seem to want one type of boring machine for any type of ground.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
What Musk is reaching for is automating/reducing the workforce/vertical integration. The enormous layering of contracting out the counteracting out of the contracting out that goes on in big infrastructure projects bears a striking resemblance to the organisational structure used in big aerospace.
I can see that, but AIUI it's not the case with actual tunnelling, which is fairly efficient.
The problem occurs with the later parts: take Crossrail, where the tunnelling went quite well, but the mess started with the fitting out. Musk is essentially ignoring this part by using the simplest possible solution inside the tunnel.
Well, yes - by reducing the complexity of the solution, the method becomes easier.
For example, using ethernet (essentially) on your rocket was considered insane. But it reduces the cabling complexity by orders of magnitude, and runs over fibre nicely, so you don't have to worry about antenna effects.
I agree with much (almost all) of what Cyclefree says but bad laws to "send signals" that make good headlines, rather than fix problems, massively predate this administration stretching all the way back to Blair.
That doesn't excuse what's being done now but to heap opprobrium for all of it just on Boris isn't accurate. Politicians have found it's worked for them in managing problems and perceptions, so they've kept doing it.
Some of us still remember the Dangerous Dogs Act.
We might coin a name for these laws that governments seek to bring in purely for electoral posturing instead of concrete need regardless of the legal consequences. Virtue Signalling Legislation perhaps?
Section 28, too. Dumb, posturing legislation is a depressing constant in political life, whoever is in charge.
with regard to the RNLI problem, on reflection it looks more and more like the problem may rest with Priti Patel. She acts from the gut and tries to drive through what she thinks is right, and has had a good run, with a bit of luck. However, she has never come across as being particularly appreciative of the nuances of her position, in the manner that Amber Rudd and Theresa May were.
I broadly agree. Maybe that's because Priti Patel is too interested in gesture politics, even more so than the England football team? Her 'solutions' are those that appeal to her Essex base, rather than focusing on the extraordinary complexity of resolving the migrant/asylum seeker issue. Diplomatic skills may also be helpful, I guess, in discussions with the French and others.
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
I also reckon Johnson wobbled very badly in the run up to the decision on freedom day. Indeed, I wonder if the only thing that kept it on track was the threat of a senior resignation or two. Sunak hinted it was July 19 or never for him, for example.
I agree with much (almost all) of what Cyclefree says but bad laws to "send signals" that make good headlines, rather than fix problems, massively predate this administration stretching all the way back to Blair.
That doesn't excuse what's being done now but to heap opprobrium for all of it just on Boris isn't accurate. Politicians have found it's worked for them in managing problems and perceptions, so they've kept doing it.
Some of us still remember the Dangerous Dogs Act.
We might coin a name for these laws that governments seek to bring in purely for electoral posturing instead of concrete need regardless of the legal consequences. Virtue Signalling Legislation perhaps?
True, but I've never made my mind up about the Dangerous Dogs Act.
The trouble is there are quite a lot of dangerous dogs around, badly handled or treated by bad owners too, and quite frankly some of them terrify me, so I'm not sure how repeal would make things better.
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
Who was attacking Rashford?
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
If you recall Essicks Massiv said that he was supported by his fellow Tories. We then had some Tory MP repeat his comments word for word which suggests a WhatsApp "line to take".
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
IANAE, but geology can almost always be engineered out by altering the boring machine or tunnelling technique. This is one of the reasons why I think Musk's Boring Company is on a hiding to nothing: they seem to want one type of boring machine for any type of ground.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
What Musk is reaching for is automating/reducing the workforce/vertical integration. The enormous layering of contracting out the counteracting out of the contracting out that goes on in big infrastructure projects bears a striking resemblance to the organisational structure used in big aerospace.
I can see that, but AIUI it's not the case with actual tunnelling, which is fairly efficient.
The problem occurs with the later parts: take Crossrail, where the tunnelling went quite well, but the mess started with the fitting out. Musk is essentially ignoring this part by using the simplest possible solution inside the tunnel.
Well, yes - by reducing the complexity of the solution, the method becomes easier.
For example, using ethernet (essentially) on your rocket was considered insane. But it reduces the cabling complexity by orders of magnitude, and runs over fibre nicely, so you don't have to worry about antenna effects.
Yes... but as I said the other day, the complexity of the systems are often necessary, e.g. for safety. These systems are really easy to miss when you design a new system to save money, it can have significant later costs.
I agree with much (almost all) of what Cyclefree says but bad laws to "send signals" that make good headlines, rather than fix problems, massively predate this administration stretching all the way back to Blair.
That doesn't excuse what's being done now but to heap opprobrium for all of it just on Boris isn't accurate. Politicians have found it's worked for them in managing problems and perceptions, so they've kept doing it.
Some of us still remember the Dangerous Dogs Act.
We might coin a name for these laws that governments seek to bring in purely for electoral posturing instead of concrete need regardless of the legal consequences. Virtue Signalling Legislation perhaps?
True, but I've never made my mind up about the Dangerous Dogs Act.
The trouble is there are quite a lot of dangerous dogs around, badly handled or treated by bad owners too, and quite frankly some of them terrify me, so I'm not sure how repeal would make things better.
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
Just in time to pish in Jackie Baillie's plate of chips - and Mr Sarwar's too. SLAB demanding 4 weeks in Scotland yeserday as their secret weapon against the SNP ...
Interesting piece on why the JCVI is not recommending shortening the interval between doses of the Pfizer vaccine:
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
What is interesting is that the medical "system" in the UK seems to be, sometimes much more.... investigative? than in other countries.
I have pointed out such things to my American relatives - they (and the CDC) come back to "Recommended by the manufacturer and licensed for" and anything else is Rank Heresy......
Yes, the UK approach does seem to be quite distinctive and (as far as I can see as a non-expert) very well thought out and grounded in a very practical application of the scientific data. It's no doubt helped by the fact that we seem to have some of the world's best statistical data on the real-world rollout.
I think it is also cultural - the "but that is breaking the manufacturers instructions" seems to be a common theme.
Interestingly, the booster jab thing is causing a bit of storm in the US
Following the 'recommended rules' & AZT panic explains why barely 50% of 65-9 year olds are double jabbed - way less than those aged 50-60. Meanwhile Delta is rampant among the under 30s as the big August cross-generational family holibobs loom.....
It actually doesn't.
I'm in the 45-49 group and been double jabbed. Those aged 65-9 qualified for their second jabs months ago...
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
Who was attacking Rashford?
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
If you recall Essicks Massiv said that he was supported by his fellow Tories. We then had some Tory MP repeat his comments word for word which suggests a WhatsApp "line to take".
Most likely is that in a six degrees of separation thing, or maybe even by a member of the group, HYUFD was sent the WhatsApp message and thought he would parade his Tory insider credentials by reposting it here.
Did he think about it? No. As we have agreed - for the current band of Conservatives it is more important to be part of a groupthink than for that groupthink to be queried as to its moral value.
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
IANAE, but geology can almost always be engineered out by altering the boring machine or tunnelling technique. This is one of the reasons why I think Musk's Boring Company is on a hiding to nothing: they seem to want one type of boring machine for any type of ground.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
What Musk is reaching for is automating/reducing the workforce/vertical integration. The enormous layering of contracting out the counteracting out of the contracting out that goes on in big infrastructure projects bears a striking resemblance to the organisational structure used in big aerospace.
I can see that, but AIUI it's not the case with actual tunnelling, which is fairly efficient.
The problem occurs with the later parts: take Crossrail, where the tunnelling went quite well, but the mess started with the fitting out. Musk is essentially ignoring this part by using the simplest possible solution inside the tunnel.
Well, yes - by reducing the complexity of the solution, the method becomes easier.
For example, using ethernet (essentially) on your rocket was considered insane. But it reduces the cabling complexity by orders of magnitude, and runs over fibre nicely, so you don't have to worry about antenna effects.
Yes... but as I said the other day, the complexity of the systems are often necessary, e.g. for safety. These systems are really easy to miss when you design a new system to save money, it can have significant later costs.
Designing a system to be more complex to increase safety is often a bad sign. Since the complexity is then a great place for bugs to hide in.
Designing a system to be less efficient, but simpler is often a good way to increase reliability.
Are you (or Guido) suggesting that our Prime Minister is not capable of saying directly contradictory things in the blink of an eye, as he did on this one and many others?
Comments
https://twitter.com/KCTV5/status/1414954734595813384
Do you think the RNLI is an organisation of "barristers" or "immigration barristers" or not?
Those paragraphs are not relevant to what the RNLI itself has to say, which is not a story.
From what I have seen, it is perfectly possible to be partly both. Indeed that is rather common. The "100% I will be killed in my country" is rare. "My people have a shitty life in country X, and I would like to get a job in a rich country" is much more common.
I commented below that even if the Police decided not to do something, you may end up with a private criminal prosecution simply to check what the law actually was (and embarrass Boris and co at the same time).
Separately and offtopic - did you see the link I posted yesterday regarding a podcast talking about Tether https://t.co/5FrMy23HAU?amp=1 . Knowing your love of cryptocurrencies I expect the whole hour will be justifiable as work time.
Professor Anthony Harnden, the JCVI’s deputy chair [said] "we concentrated on the Pfizer vaccine because of course that’s one that’s being given to younger people at the moment.
“And it’s quite clear from antibody T-cells studies that you get much lower response, and poorer quality memory response with the shorter interval — that’s a four-week interval compared to an eight-to-12-week interval. And the actual real data vaccine effectiveness studies show that there is a lower vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease with shorter intervals compared to longer intervals.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/infections-will-rise-if-interval-between-vaccines-is-further-reduced-advisers-warn-lrhzzq28r [£££]
They modelled the effect of reducing the interval and found it would make things worse in terms of the number of cases.
That is strikingly different from the approach of most other countries and the advice of Pfizer themselves.
So "I am starving at home, and the government is doing it to my people deliberately."
I have pointed out such things to my American relatives - they (and the CDC) come back to "Recommended by the manufacturer and licensed for" and anything else is Rank Heresy......
http://www.largeimages.bgs.ac.uk/iip/mapsportal.html?id=1001778
I recently switched from Mc Donalds to supermarket sandwich deals - £3 -£4 for a meal deal and you can get much better food, and it is quick.
Interestingly, the booster jab thing is causing a bit of storm in the US
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/pfizer-pushes-for-boosters-as-health-experts-say-theyre-unneeded-unethical/
40/31/13
Big rise for Lib Dems
https://twitter.com/nicholascecil/status/1415269443756773378?s=19
Bit of a weird mix of polling at the moment, but overall still showing large Tory lead.
As well as cheaper and more nutritious.
But speed used to be the USP. Now it isn't.
Of course, it is not just the RNLI that needs legal exemption, but also independent lifeboats such as on the IoW, and also anyone else in command of a boat who encounters anyone in distress from fishermen, to merchant marine to pleasure boat skippers.
Malaysia reports 11,618 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 118 new deaths
NEW: Tokyo reports 1,149 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase since January, as the city prepares for the Olympics
BREAKING: Indonesia reports 54,517 new coronavirus cases, by far the biggest one-day increase on record, and 991 new deaths
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
Thread header saying Tories are down incoming then? 🤔
Recycling.
Now they make food to order.
I'm in the 45-49 group and been double jabbed. Those aged 65-9 qualified for their second jabs months ago...
We had that first report from Israel saying protection was only ~60% for Pfizer against Indian variant, but it was a really small sample size. And we all remember the South African first study of AZN vs their variant saying it was useless, but it turned out is isn't. Law of small numbers and all that.
In 3 months, I think we will be able to say more.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
"At this point this really is a preventable illness, a preventable infection," a county health official said, according to NBC LA
Or they to go, demand ID, then either rescue or let sink?
Personally I'm a libertarian and I'd encourage people to vote with their feet. Don't like Facebook or Twitter? Don't use them.
Again law of small numbers....they only have a small number of cases at the moment, and Delta variant isn't at the 80-90% levels it is here yet.
I am not placing too much weight in either Israel saying it doesn't work as well (as our numbers say it does at the moment) or one county in the US saying things ok here working perfectly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz20lu2AM2k
That doesn't excuse what's being done now but to heap opprobrium for all of it just on Boris isn't accurate. Politicians have found it's worked for them in managing problems and perceptions, so they've kept doing it.
But there are plenty of charities that make political campaigns - Oxfam, for example, have been publishing weakly argued guff about so-called 'tax justice' for many years now.
They are currently waging a campaign on the suspension of Vaccine Patents, despite it being obvious that that will not make the blindest bit of difference.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-9785201/Lumpy-sandwich-leaving-sour-taste-Brooks-Koepka-lay-unfair-Open-course.html
Of the Open venues I've been to, Royal St George's is easily my favourite. Looks like a decent strength wind coming off the North Sea, which should make things interesting.
They do, I'm afraid, badly need to professionalise. Their leadership model just doesn't work.
The financial circumstances have changed theres been a statement in Parliament and a vote to resolve it, as per the law.
No legal commitment reneged on. The law was followed.
We took pride in its plainness as a sign of our stoicism and virility, strange as it sounds.
The problem of obesity in the poor is very real, but much more complex than not having the money.
Cheap fatty salty sugary foods are a simple pleasure in lives with little else. It is the same reason that the poor smoke and drink more. The poverty is not just financial, though that is real, it is poverty of skills, poverty of social capital and very often poverty of ambition. Just getting through the day is often the only real target. Dead end lives need simple transient pleasures. When people have something to live for, they get the motivation to live better.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
The problem occurs with the later parts: take Crossrail, where the tunnelling went quite well, but the mess started with the fitting out. Musk is essentially ignoring this part by using the simplest possible solution inside the tunnel.
The "red meat" of letting a boatful of migrants drown is something the Powellites in this country have been slavering for for decades. (Often they will refer to Australia in this connection.) They got Brexit. They got the okay from a cabinet minister for loutishly booing the English football team for taking the knee. Drowned migrants followed by a "serves them right" statement by the prime minister may be next on the list. I have even heard some of them say that such inhumanity would be "brave".
Meanwhile Dominic Cummings says Labour could walk the next general election if they focused on addressing the problem of "violent crime". Talk about moving the Overton window...
Since Lord Steyn's lecture, several judicial decisions have limited the use of Pepper by the courts; the result of these changes, according to Stefan Vogenauer, is that "the scope of Pepper v Hart has been reduced to such an extent that the ruling has almost become meaningless".[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600612 and https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2Y6cAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq="the+scope+of+Pepper+v+Hart+has+been+reduced+to+such+an+extent+that+the+ruling+has+almost+become+meaningless"+Vogenauer&source=bl&ots=CPbzT1cFfv&sig=ACfU3U1HGXOAFwYsh3gOr2S-b67xkcZLxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy6-6fyuLxAhVhRUEAHXhgBRQQ6AEwBHoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q="the scope of Pepper v Hart has been reduced to such an extent that the ruling has almost become meaningless" Vogenauer&f=false
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
We might coin a name for these laws that governments seek to bring in purely for electoral posturing instead of concrete need regardless of the legal consequences. Virtue Signalling Legislation perhaps?
They've issued a statement within the confines of the existing law, following the procedure laid down within the existing law.
No law change has occurred. Exercising a provision of a law is not a change in the law.
For example, using ethernet (essentially) on your rocket was considered insane. But it reduces the cabling complexity by orders of magnitude, and runs over fibre nicely, so you don't have to worry about antenna effects.
The trouble is there are quite a lot of dangerous dogs around, badly handled or treated by bad owners too, and quite frankly some of them terrify me, so I'm not sure how repeal would make things better.
Is there an alternative?
https://order-order.com/2021/07/14/fact-check-boris-did-condemn-english-football-team-booing/
Surely there are going to be all kinds of problems here.
Recruitment problems. Dismissal cases, Privacy law, Human rights cases. Equality law caes. Has this not opened up a gigantic can of worms?
He could call Johnson what he really is: WEAK, WEAK, WEAK
Did he think about it? No. As we have agreed - for the current band of Conservatives it is more important to be part of a groupthink than for that groupthink to be queried as to its moral value.
Designing a system to be less efficient, but simpler is often a good way to increase reliability.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9786817/Ibiza-Mallorca-Menorca-added-amber-list.html
Caused by super spreading flint dildo knappers?
This is really going to piss people off...the in, out, shake it all about..