Howdy, Stranger!

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

Another post-BoJo quarantine U-turn poll sees CON below 40% and LAB within 4% – politicalbetting.com

145679

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    Hugh Osmond
    @hughosmond
    Nightclub bosses ready to take Government to court over Covid vaccine passports ⁦
    @EssexPR

    I know tweets have limited space, but I'd like to know on what basis they intend to challenge, since you don't generally just get to go to court for not liking a decision (not that it stops people trying that), and the precise angle of approach they are taking would be interesting.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    edited July 2021
    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Andrew Neil
    Jeremy Clarkson.
    Richard Burgon
    Jeez. You really hate going around old country houses don't you?
    Since you ask...

    I think the NT should focus on natural heritage and dump all of the big old houses.
    Would rather undermine their founding purpose, and would i imagine break legal covenants...
    Interesting challenge.

    It's a helluva big job.

    I might suggest Princess Anne.

    Naff Orf.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,945
    Danny Dyer
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,148
    kle4 said:

    Hugh Osmond
    @hughosmond
    Nightclub bosses ready to take Government to court over Covid vaccine passports ⁦
    @EssexPR

    I know tweets have limited space, but I'd like to know on what basis they intend to challenge, since you don't generally just get to go to court for not liking a decision (not that it stops people trying that), and the precise angle of approach they are taking would be interesting.
    Initially they seem to be saying it will unlawful if there is not a proper consultation period with the industry.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    edited July 2021
    DougSeal said:

    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    ALRIGHT I'LL BUY A CHEESE FLAKER

    Don’t all your standard 99p graters come with a single blade for flaking?

    I’ve had 2 of them in the last 20 years (the posh metal ones for 5.99) and they’ve worked fine
    Shocked. Absolutely shocked.
    2 in 20 years FFS?

    I'm still using the same gratererer that mum had when I was 5.

    How on earth do you break these things?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 39,061

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Liverpool has already lost World Heritage Status:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57927744
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,890
    MattW said:

    DougSeal said:

    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    ALRIGHT I'LL BUY A CHEESE FLAKER

    Don’t all your standard 99p graters come with a single blade for flaking?

    I’ve had 2 of them in the last 20 years (the posh metal ones for 5.99) and they’ve worked fine
    Shocked. Absolutely shocked.
    2 in 20 years FFS?

    I'm still using the same gratererer that mum had when I was 5.

    How on earth do you break these things?
    You’re clearly not trying hard enough.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,116
    edited July 2021
    kle4 said:

    Hugh Osmond
    @hughosmond
    Nightclub bosses ready to take Government to court over Covid vaccine passports ⁦
    @EssexPR

    I know tweets have limited space, but I'd like to know on what basis they intend to challenge, since you don't generally just get to go to court for not liking a decision (not that it stops people trying that), and the precise angle of approach they are taking would be interesting.
    Not a lawyer, but we can all speculate until somebody more expert puts us right... ;)

    I imagine they would be challenging the legal basis for the Government implementing restrictions on individual businesses. And if the Government manages to pass primary legislation then challenging if they are particularly singling out individual businesses. Especially if there are venues of similar levels of Covid risk where such restrictions are not required.

    As i suggested above, i can imagine that the Government's purpose for imposing requirements would be a big question. If it is because nightclubs without vaxports are deemed unsafe (in which case why are they allowed to open at present)? Or is it because they are being exploited because of their particular client base in order to co-erce their customers to get vaccinated. I can see that the Government could be on dodgy ground there...
  • That's such a Charles post, I feel like sometimes he just posts like an arrogant arse to get a reaction
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,800
    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Andrew Neil
    Jeremy Clarkson.
    Richard Burgon
    Jeez. You really hate going around old country houses don't you?
    Since you ask...

    I think the NT should focus on natural heritage and dump all of the big old houses.
    Would rather undermine their founding purpose, and would i imagine break legal covenants...
    In that case Cumstain is the ideal candidate for the job.

    #Cum4NT
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Most Scottish people are perfectly delightful and friendly. But there is a sizeable hardcore of the Nat vote and, especially, Nat activism which harbours instinctive dislike of the English. If you want to see it check Scottish football fans during an England game against Anyone Else

    You don't get it.

    Supporting "anyone against England" is not because we hate the English.

    It's because the English are such insufferable winners.

    You have been going on about 1 match for 55 years.
    I've seen this in Scotland for myself. It's not just 1966 (and I can see why that grates, due to English TV coverage). There is more. There is real dislike, even hatred, at times
    Indeed. Last time me and the wife were in Scotland we were given some real anti-English zingers from Scots we met on the assumption we were both American (the wife tends to do most of the talking in our relationship). It’s real.

    I was in Queensferry some years ago for a for a friend’s wedding to a local girl.

    Only place - anywhere in the world - I’ve been made to feel unwelcome because of my accent
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,116

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Liverpool has already lost World Heritage Status:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57927744
    A rather superfluous link given it is in the first paragraph of the article! ;)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    Surely the obvious candidate for head of NT, resident flint knapper Leon.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Chris Grayling?
    Christ! That's a real risk - he's a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery.

    George Osborne could probably add it to his 6879 other jobs.
    Rich people don't have jobs, just interests and hobbies.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 15,223
    Chris Packham
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.

    The nice thing about real hunks of Parmesan is that they last for a very very long time - nearly 2 years in the freezer.
    Burying it in the garden is more authentic

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,148

    Surely the obvious candidate for head of NT, resident flint knapper Leon.....

    He's too busy playing 'hunt the cat collar' with his new vet girlfriend.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Paul Lever @paul_lever
    The future of the Nordstream pipeline was decided in a meeting between Chancellor Merkel and President Biden. The EU was not involved, nor were other member states consulted. Can Germany credibly claim that it favours a common European foreign policy?


    https://twitter.com/paul_lever/status/1418972285516587014?s=20

    AIUI the Russian company involved purchased Gerhard Schroder - more or less - (Greensill style?).

    Now Germany needs to find a way to extract Ukraine from under the bus where they just threw it.

    I'm quite interested as to how this is violating EU energy policy.
    Given the Nordstream pipeline had just a single contract underpinning it (between a collection of Germany power companies on the one side and Gazprom on the other), it's unclear to me why either any other EU country or the EU itself would have had a say in its future.

    While still in the EU, the UK and Norway (well, really Shell, Exxon and Statoil) created the Langeled pipeline, and I'm pretty sure than neither the EU nor any other EU countries were involved. (Except possibly Ireland, because they had a reexport agreement in place with the UK.)
    I think there has been a directive or two since. Consequences for Ukraine look quite extreme. But they have some rights under their association agreement with the EU.

    Refs:
    https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-poland-condemn-nord-stream-2-deal-vow-action/
    https://www.politico.eu/article/us-and-germany-have-nord-stream-2-pipeline-deal-but-lack-authority-to-implement-it/
    Sure.

    But ultimately, it is in the interests of Germany to have as many pipelines going into then as possible. It's probably in the interests of the broader EU to have similar, although the rise of LNG makes natural gas security generally better for importers.

    It sucks, of course, for Ukraine. Because their leverage over Russia was stopping gas exports to Europe. But LNG was also beginning to chip away at that leverage.
    Indeed. Ultimately post-war Germany always follows the money and the security.

    One interesting one will whether the new "import of carbon" tariff gets applied.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,800
    Charles said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Most Scottish people are perfectly delightful and friendly. But there is a sizeable hardcore of the Nat vote and, especially, Nat activism which harbours instinctive dislike of the English. If you want to see it check Scottish football fans during an England game against Anyone Else

    You don't get it.

    Supporting "anyone against England" is not because we hate the English.

    It's because the English are such insufferable winners.

    You have been going on about 1 match for 55 years.
    I've seen this in Scotland for myself. It's not just 1966 (and I can see why that grates, due to English TV coverage). There is more. There is real dislike, even hatred, at times
    Indeed. Last time me and the wife were in Scotland we were given some real anti-English zingers from Scots we met on the assumption we were both American (the wife tends to do most of the talking in our relationship). It’s real.

    I was in Queensferry some years ago for a for a friend’s wedding to a local girl.

    Only place - anywhere in the world - I’ve been made to feel unwelcome because of my accent
    You have an Edinburgh accent?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,612
    You don't need a flawed observational study to prove sars cov 2 affects Brain function, you just need to open Twitter.

    The real q is if the effect is direct or indirect.


    https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1419043204083568641?s=20
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Andrew Neil
    Jeremy Clarkson.
    Richard Burgon
    Jeez. You really hate going around old country houses don't you?
    Since you ask...

    I think the NT should focus on natural heritage and dump all of the big old houses.
    That's what Nature England is for.
    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Chris Grayling?
    Christ! That's a real risk - he's a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery.

    George Osborne could probably add it to his 6879 other jobs.
    I was under the impression that Osborne had junked his sidelines to concentrate on making huge sums of money at some bank catering to the fantastically wealthy?

    I didn't know about Grayling's existing gig. Yes, I think he'd do very well.

    Chairmanship plus a life peerage incoming...
    Osborne joined Robey Warshaw to become an investment banker but then also announced he would be the next Chair of the British Museum.

    Perhaps the gig should go to David Cameron. He's not going to get many other offers.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    kle4 said:

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Other archaelogical aspects in the surrounding countryside, or presumed archaelogical aspects underground, I would assume. I don't think the tunnel opposers have done a great job of explaining that, though I imagine they still have majority support.

    But I must say the opening seems to suggest a somewhat irrational approach to judging Heritage Status, since I don't see why other sites would have a harsher spotlight thrown on them because of the Liverpool decision. Surely such decisions should be based on the individual situations of each site, the whole point being they are of unique heritage interest. So they should be viewed just as softly or harshly as they were before.
    I'm not really sure how losing WHS would make the slightest difference to Stonehenge tbh.

    I still think they should make a replica in the visitor centre car park of how the stone circle would have looked at its peak. Most visitors wouldn't bother to make the 2km walk from the visitor centre to the actual stones, thus protecting the real site.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,612
    Is this the first real world data we have of AZ against beta?

    It’s rather depressing the amount of crap AZ get re their vaccine when it’s astonishing good against *all variants* and after *1 dose* at protecting against severe disease.

    A big shame as it’s an excellent vaccine.


    https://twitter.com/ThatRyanChap/status/1417399667541827603?s=20
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,390
    kle4 said:

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Other archaelogical aspects in the surrounding countryside, or presumed archaelogical aspects underground, I would assume. I don't think the tunnel opposers have done a great job of explaining that, though I imagine they still have majority support.

    But I must say the opening seems to suggest a somewhat irrational approach to judging Heritage Status, since I don't see why other sites would have a harsher spotlight thrown on them because of the Liverpool decision. Surely such decisions should be based on the individual situations of each site, the whole point being they are of unique heritage interest. So they should be viewed just as softly or harshly as they were before.
    Not that I expect anyone to care but my parents life is blighted by what they did at Stonehenge. The new visitor centre being built led to far more people diverting off the 303 through their village. It has become a horrific rat run. The idiots who oppose the tunnel spout nonsense about destroying valuable history. Well you’ve had centuries to dig it up and haven’t bothered so far. It can all be surveyed and will be before digging starts.
    I genuinely love history and science, but I doubt that there is anything buried on the plain that will change our view of history. Almost all the shit they spout about Stonehenge is pure supposition. We cannot know what they used it for. Anyone who says different is lying.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,800
    BTW, some PBers may recall that the other day I found £20 in our garden. Well this afternoon, after mowing, I found another £20 in almost the same spot.

    Very puzzling.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Anyhoo we've had a very informative view of the bigotry of the Cybernats today and the defence of them by the other Cybernats.

    Not one has the gonads to come out and say Dickson is talking offensive crap and Malcolm needs to apologise and STFU for a bit

    It is revealing

    I wonder if it has dawned on them that they really ain't getting a sindyref2 for a long time? Hence the bitter irritation
    I don't think it is that.

    I think there's more a dawning realisation that if we have Indyref2 and they lose it then that it is for Scottish Independence for a very long time.

    A bit like Quebec, there was a second referendum which the Nats lost by 1% in 1995 and that was it, for a generation and then some.

    I think it may explain Nicola Sturgeon's reticence on Indyref2.
    I dunno, I think I might be nearer the truth

    There really was an expectation that after the Holyrood election there would be this unstoppable momentum towards sindyref2, incredible moral pressure on Boris, the Tories would cave. At the same time people like malc thought Alba would win six seats at least, putting pressure on Sturgeon to go for it

    None of that has happened, pressure for a vote has dissipated, rather than grown, the polls have not budged. NO have a small lead, a vote isn't happening til after the next GE, and even then it is extremely hard to force

    Sindyref2 now recedes towards 2030, I don't expect one until the late 2020s, at the earliest

    That's tough for a lot of Nats who thought they were on the edge of the next plebiscite.

    And of course by, say, 2028 or whatever, the UK will have drifted further from the EU and indy in the EU will seem even more of a wrench.....
    Bad take, I think. Or premature at best. It's driven too much by what you want to be the case. Once Covid is over I expect Sturgeon to be right on it for Sindy. People underestimate her and they do so in 2 ways. 1. That she doesn't really want to fight for Sindy because she's happy with her current top dog position. Think that's very clear bollocks. 2. That she's in any case powerless because Johnson can just say No and that's the end of it. Also bollocks. The situation is more nuanced than this. A ref by 2025 is drifting towards 2/1 and for me that's getting close to being worth a look.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562
    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Chris Grayling?
    Christ! That's a real risk - he's a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery.

    George Osborne could probably add it to his 6879 other jobs.
    I was under the impression that Osborne had junked his sidelines to concentrate on making huge sums of money at some bank catering to the fantastically wealthy?

    I didn't know about Grayling's existing gig. Yes, I think he'd do very well.

    Chairmanship plus a life peerage incoming...
    Osborne joined Robey Warshaw to become an investment banker but then also announced he would be the next Chair of the British Museum.

    Perhaps the gig should go to David Cameron. He's not going to get many other offers.
    Ah! I'd somehow forgotten about the whole British Museum thing.

    You did ask for a useless incompetent. David Cameron's historic feat of contriving to remove the United Kingdom from the European Union against his own wishes may mean that he doesn't necessarily merit a position amongst the front rank of British statesmen, but he did at least manage to win a General Election.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,334

    kle4 said:

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Other archaelogical aspects in the surrounding countryside, or presumed archaelogical aspects underground, I would assume. I don't think the tunnel opposers have done a great job of explaining that, though I imagine they still have majority support.

    But I must say the opening seems to suggest a somewhat irrational approach to judging Heritage Status, since I don't see why other sites would have a harsher spotlight thrown on them because of the Liverpool decision. Surely such decisions should be based on the individual situations of each site, the whole point being they are of unique heritage interest. So they should be viewed just as softly or harshly as they were before.
    Not that I expect anyone to care but my parents life is blighted by what they did at Stonehenge. The new visitor centre being built led to far more people diverting off the 303 through their village. It has become a horrific rat run. The idiots who oppose the tunnel spout nonsense about destroying valuable history. Well you’ve had centuries to dig it up and haven’t bothered so far. It can all be surveyed and will be before digging starts.
    I genuinely love history and science, but I doubt that there is anything buried on the plain that will change our view of history. Almost all the shit they spout about Stonehenge is pure supposition. We cannot know what they used it for. Anyone who says different is lying.
    Bollocks we know what it was for it was a primitive lottery number predictor
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    edited July 2021

    And they're off!

    Taken them a while to crank up the outrage bus.....original tweet 6 hours old....

    Being cautious & protecting oneself & others isn't 'cowering'? Many want to protect themselves & loved ones, including CEV & those who're unvaccinated, who are even greater risk. Those who are vaccinated can get infected, transmit & get long COVID. What sort of messaging is this?

    https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1419031354268917760?s=20

    Will that reach not-pology or apology status?

    Hmmm.

    On World Heritage Status, don't we mainly need to remember that UNESCO has always been a shitshow?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,890

    BTW, some PBers may recall that the other day I found £20 in our garden. Well this afternoon, after mowing, I found another £20 in almost the same spot.

    Very puzzling.

    Is someone playing an elaborate prank? Are these new plastic £20s or old fashioned paper ones?
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,830

    BTW, some PBers may recall that the other day I found £20 in our garden. Well this afternoon, after mowing, I found another £20 in almost the same spot.

    Very puzzling.

    If you have in fact found the magic money tree then do please share your secret with the rest of us.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,334
    DougSeal said:

    BTW, some PBers may recall that the other day I found £20 in our garden. Well this afternoon, after mowing, I found another £20 in almost the same spot.

    Very puzzling.

    Is someone playing an elaborate prank? Are these new plastic £20s or old fashioned paper ones?
    Perhaps some planted pound coins and is growing money trees
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    Pretty significant drop in life expectancy in South Africa.

    Total Life Expectancy (LE) at birth declined from 65,5 to 62 years. Decline in Life expectancy is due to the rise in excessive deaths during #COVID19 pandemic.

    Read more here: https://t.co/2ApxFr2gdh

    #StatsSA #SApopulation https://t.co/ct3hZTcMxo
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,334
    Foxy said:

    Pretty significant drop in life expectancy in South Africa.

    Total Life Expectancy (LE) at birth declined from 65,5 to 62 years. Decline in Life expectancy is due to the rise in excessive deaths during #COVID19 pandemic.

    Read more here: https://t.co/2ApxFr2gdh

    #StatsSA #SApopulation https://t.co/ct3hZTcMxo

    How many excess deaths are due to the disturbed situation?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,612
    Downing St briefing that Javid behind France Amber Plus:

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1419048830071345152?s=20

    Nice of them to wait until he recovered.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Anyhoo we've had a very informative view of the bigotry of the Cybernats today and the defence of them by the other Cybernats.

    Not one has the gonads to come out and say Dickson is talking offensive crap and Malcolm needs to apologise and STFU for a bit

    It is revealing

    I wonder if it has dawned on them that they really ain't getting a sindyref2 for a long time? Hence the bitter irritation
    I don't think it is that.

    I think there's more a dawning realisation that if we have Indyref2 and they lose it then that it is for Scottish Independence for a very long time.

    A bit like Quebec, there was a second referendum which the Nats lost by 1% in 1995 and that was it, for a generation and then some.

    I think it may explain Nicola Sturgeon's reticence on Indyref2.
    I dunno, I think I might be nearer the truth

    There really was an expectation that after the Holyrood election there would be this unstoppable momentum towards sindyref2, incredible moral pressure on Boris, the Tories would cave. At the same time people like malc thought Alba would win six seats at least, putting pressure on Sturgeon to go for it

    None of that has happened, pressure for a vote has dissipated, rather than grown, the polls have not budged. NO have a small lead, a vote isn't happening til after the next GE, and even then it is extremely hard to force

    Sindyref2 now recedes towards 2030, I don't expect one until the late 2020s, at the earliest

    That's tough for a lot of Nats who thought they were on the edge of the next plebiscite.

    And of course by, say, 2028 or whatever, the UK will have drifted further from the EU and indy in the EU will seem even more of a wrench.....
    Bad take, I think. Or premature at best. It's driven too much by what you want to be the case. Once Covid is over I expect Sturgeon to be right on it for Sindy. People underestimate her and they do so in 2 ways. 1. That she doesn't really want to fight for Sindy because she's happy with her current top dog position. Think that's very clear bollocks. 2. That she's in any case powerless because Johnson can just say No and that's the end of it. Also bollocks. The situation is more nuanced than this. A ref by 2025 is drifting towards 2/1 and for me that's getting close to being worth a look.
    But I was right that there would be no indyref whatever happened at Holyrood 2021, as Boris would just say No. Many on here - can't remember if you were one - were sure that the Tories would cave.

    FWIW I think whoever wins the next GE will also resist an indyref, including Starmer, and so it will be punted into the late 2020s. By then Sturgeon, however formidable, will be gone

    By the late 2020s the very powerful "once in a generation" argument will be wearing thin, so Sindyref2 will happen in the years 2028-2032, the same way the 2nd Quebec referendum came 15 years after the 1st.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,789

    BTW, some PBers may recall that the other day I found £20 in our garden. Well this afternoon, after mowing, I found another £20 in almost the same spot.

    Very puzzling.

    Did you pick up the original £20?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Pagan2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Other archaelogical aspects in the surrounding countryside, or presumed archaelogical aspects underground, I would assume. I don't think the tunnel opposers have done a great job of explaining that, though I imagine they still have majority support.

    But I must say the opening seems to suggest a somewhat irrational approach to judging Heritage Status, since I don't see why other sites would have a harsher spotlight thrown on them because of the Liverpool decision. Surely such decisions should be based on the individual situations of each site, the whole point being they are of unique heritage interest. So they should be viewed just as softly or harshly as they were before.
    Not that I expect anyone to care but my parents life is blighted by what they did at Stonehenge. The new visitor centre being built led to far more people diverting off the 303 through their village. It has become a horrific rat run. The idiots who oppose the tunnel spout nonsense about destroying valuable history. Well you’ve had centuries to dig it up and haven’t bothered so far. It can all be surveyed and will be before digging starts.
    I genuinely love history and science, but I doubt that there is anything buried on the plain that will change our view of history. Almost all the shit they spout about Stonehenge is pure supposition. We cannot know what they used it for. Anyone who says different is lying.
    Bollocks we know what it was for it was a primitive lottery number predictor
    Nonsense, it was the creation of a former club footed psychopath who spent decades ruining peoples lives for his deranged fantasy and cuckolded his brother into the bargain, Bernard Cornwell told me so.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pretty significant drop in life expectancy in South Africa.

    Total Life Expectancy (LE) at birth declined from 65,5 to 62 years. Decline in Life expectancy is due to the rise in excessive deaths during #COVID19 pandemic.

    Read more here: https://t.co/2ApxFr2gdh

    #StatsSA #SApopulation https://t.co/ct3hZTcMxo

    How many excess deaths are due to the disturbed situation?
    I don't think the recent riots would be affecting official figures yet. The economic problems stoking the riots, quite possibly though.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639

    So no change from Opinium...lol

    I'm sick to death of their pre-poll tweets claiming something interesting is about to happen.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'm sorry we've stopped talking about cheese graters. Because now people are talking about "cricket" and "rugby" and I am pretty sure you can't eat either of those.

    Can't we discuss pasta sauces instead?

    Cheese graters trigger me ever since a female friend told me

    'You know you've been single for too long when you can grate a big block of cheese in under ten seconds.'

    Grating cheese after that....
    No worries then. Neither a cheese-grater nor a corkscrew here. Are there really still bottles of wine without screwtops?
    You’re a fan of Dido, then ?
    (Her sole positive contribution to British society.)
    The singer? She’s a sweetheart
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    kle4 said:

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Other archaelogical aspects in the surrounding countryside, or presumed archaelogical aspects underground, I would assume. I don't think the tunnel opposers have done a great job of explaining that, though I imagine they still have majority support.

    But I must say the opening seems to suggest a somewhat irrational approach to judging Heritage Status, since I don't see why other sites would have a harsher spotlight thrown on them because of the Liverpool decision. Surely such decisions should be based on the individual situations of each site, the whole point being they are of unique heritage interest. So they should be viewed just as softly or harshly as they were before.
    Not that I expect anyone to care but my parents life is blighted by what they did at Stonehenge. The new visitor centre being built led to far more people diverting off the 303 through their village. It has become a horrific rat run. The idiots who oppose the tunnel spout nonsense about destroying valuable history. Well you’ve had centuries to dig it up and haven’t bothered so far. It can all be surveyed and will be before digging starts.
    I genuinely love history and science, but I doubt that there is anything buried on the plain that will change our view of history. Almost all the shit they spout about Stonehenge is pure supposition. We cannot know what they used it for. Anyone who says different is lying.
    Just seems to me that enhancing the current site brings some pretty big heritage improvements vs various bits that are and will remain buried or of less significance, though there are arguments about the length and siting of the tunnel. But pretty sure you used to be able to drive pretty damn close to them and they've been treated far worse even before they restored some of it.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,422

    On the subject of vaccinations: I was at a County show type event today (lots of tractors on display, cattle and sheep being judged by obscure criteria, hundreds of stalls selling everything a farmer could want or need, etc) and there was a pop-up vaccination centre where anyone who wanted could apparently go in and get a jab. Have people encountered anything similar (the vaccination centres, not the tractors)?

    Yes, Hove lawns last weekend - in a bus - seemed to be doing steady business.
    It was, until they suspended it because the staff on the bus were being intimidated by an anti-vaccine demo led by, guess who, Piers Corbyn. Tossers.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited July 2021

    BTW, some PBers may recall that the other day I found £20 in our garden. Well this afternoon, after mowing, I found another £20 in almost the same spot.

    Very puzzling.

    Did a drug dealer used to live there?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,541
    Leon said:



    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow

    Does your path ever cross with these girls fathers? #awkward 😂
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735

    Surely the obvious candidate for head of NT, resident flint knapper Leon.....

    He's too busy playing 'hunt the cat collar' with his new vet girlfriend.
    Anecdote:

    When I met the vet last week, after some online flirting, she said OMG it's you, I really have seen you before

    She recognised me because I occasionally take my older daughter's new dog to her veterinary surgery in Hampstead. True story. Pure coincidence

    Fate?!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'm sorry we've stopped talking about cheese graters. Because now people are talking about "cricket" and "rugby" and I am pretty sure you can't eat either of those.

    Can't we discuss pasta sauces instead?

    Cheese graters trigger me ever since a female friend told me

    'You know you've been single for too long when you can grate a big block of cheese in under ten seconds.'

    Grating cheese after that....
    No worries then. Neither a cheese-grater nor a corkscrew here. Are there really still bottles of wine without screwtops?
    You’re a fan of Dido, then ?
    (Her sole positive contribution to British society.)
    The singer? She’s a sweetheart
    I'm a fan.

    Though of course a posh guy would be a fan of someone named Florian Cloud de Bounevialle O'Malley Armstrong.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,541

    Is this the first real world data we have of AZ against beta?

    It’s rather depressing the amount of crap AZ get re their vaccine when it’s astonishing good against *all variants* and after *1 dose* at protecting against severe disease.

    A big shame as it’s an excellent vaccine.


    https://twitter.com/ThatRyanChap/status/1417399667541827603?s=20

    Oh nice! That's the one I had! :D
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,823

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Toby Young
    Julia Hartley Brewer
    Dominic Cummings (I don't know what he'd do but it'd be interesting...)
  • CandyCandy Posts: 51



    I think there's more a dawning realisation that if we have Indyref2 and they lose it then that it is for Scottish Independence for a very long time.

    A bit like Quebec, there was a second referendum which the Nats lost by 1% in 1995 and that was it, for a generation and then some.

    I think it may explain Nicola Sturgeon's reticence on Indyref2.


    Careful. The 1995 Quebec referendum changed facts on the ground in ways that the 2014 Scottish ref (and the Quebec 1980 ref) didn't.

    Prior to 1995, Montreal was the most established commercial city in Canada, it was like the London of Canada, because all big businesses established an office there, as it had the "network effect".

    A big part of the Quebec independence movement was based around the idea that "we" generate more than half Canada's GDP, why are we sharing this with the rest of Canada?

    After 1995 ref - where No won by 50.58% to 49.42% - the anglo-canadians were convinced that the next referendum was "sure" to win independence in the next ref and they didn't have any place in that country given the passive-aggressive attitude to non-French speakers.

    Overnight people packed their bags and moved to Toronto. Businesses, individuals, if you were either Anglo, or non-French immigrant, you got out.

    But that had an economic consequence.Quebec no longer generated the bulk of Canadian GDP. Ontario (the province where Toronto was located) did. And suddenly Quebec independence was no longer viable - because big (Anglo) business had fled. Which is why there hasn't been another ref since.

    Scotland isn't quite in the post-1995 Quebec landscape. No big business has fled, mainly because they all think independence won't happen. The oil price has collapsed from 2014 levels, but Scots don't feel it the way say Venezuelans or Russians do, because transfers from the UK govt have cushioned the effect.

    The independence movement in Scotland will only collapse if business starts to move south. But that will only happen if they lose a second ref. But they could win a second ref because voters don't realise that there might be an exodus after, in the same way 1995 Quebec didn't realise there would be an exodus. They might look at England after Brexit and think, "Nissan hasn't left, what if we're more like the English in strength than those weak Quebecois?"
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735
    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:



    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow

    Does your path ever cross with these girls fathers? #awkward 😂
    Yes. And Yes. It's awkward
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691

    That's such a Charles post, I feel like sometimes he just posts like an arrogant arse to get a reaction

    Did I miss one, Horse?

    Are graters intimidating, or was it another one? :smile:
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408

    Quite some spin from Devi in response to Javid's tweet:

    This must be painful to read for those who were severely ill & for those who lost loved ones to COVID. It wasn’t because they were weak- just unnecessarily exposed to a virus. And wanting to avoid getting COVID isn’t ‘cowering’- it’s being sensible & looking out for others.

    https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1419028469514752003?s=20

    She appears to be objecting to this: "Please - if you haven’t yet - get your jab, as we learn to live with, rather than cower from, this virus."

    Is her objection to people getting vaccinated?

    Or that we will have to live with COVID?

    She was a Zero COVID fan, then argued "zero didn't mean zero".....

    I think she's objecting to the ridiculous infantile language. She probably expects the Health Sec not to talk like a total dick.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Toby Young
    Julia Hartley Brewer
    Dominic Cummings (I don't know what he'd do but it'd be interesting...)
    Jeremy Corbyn might be good at it. He might have fellow feeling for old relics.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,076
    edited July 2021
    Avoided the Olympics Road Race all day to watch on Eurosport on replay.
    There is no commentary!
    Is anything less comprehensible an event with no one to guide you?
    Especially as everyone has changed colours from the Tour into national uniforms.
    Some Belgians are setting the pace. For van Aert I assume. But I don't even know the route, so no idea how long this climb is.
    I appreciate the commentary 100% more now.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.
    Sounds like a stiff challenge.
    If you want to talk about my love life, I have an announcement to make

    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow
    Is she mixed-race?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited July 2021
    I thought it was a bit odd when i turned on the coverage last night...i presumed it was because it was Day 1 and / or something to do with covid....but no.

    "Discovery have sold back some of the rights to the BBC, allowing the Games to remain on free-to-air TV – but only around 10 per cent of the action (and only 2 live sports at any one time)."
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pretty significant drop in life expectancy in South Africa.

    Total Life Expectancy (LE) at birth declined from 65,5 to 62 years. Decline in Life expectancy is due to the rise in excessive deaths during #COVID19 pandemic.

    Read more here: https://t.co/2ApxFr2gdh

    #StatsSA #SApopulation https://t.co/ct3hZTcMxo

    How many excess deaths are due to the disturbed situation?
    Too early to say, I'd expect.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735
    edited July 2021
    Candy said:



    I think there's more a dawning realisation that if we have Indyref2 and they lose it then that it is for Scottish Independence for a very long time.

    A bit like Quebec, there was a second referendum which the Nats lost by 1% in 1995 and that was it, for a generation and then some.

    I think it may explain Nicola Sturgeon's reticence on Indyref2.


    Careful. The 1995 Quebec referendum changed facts on the ground in ways that the 2014 Scottish ref (and the Quebec 1980 ref) didn't.

    Prior to 1995, Montreal was the most established commercial city in Canada, it was like the London of Canada, because all big businesses established an office there, as it had the "network effect".

    A big part of the Quebec independence movement was based around the idea that "we" generate more than half Canada's GDP, why are we sharing this with the rest of Canada?

    After 1995 ref - where No won by 50.58% to 49.42% - the anglo-canadians were convinced that the next referendum was "sure" to win independence in the next ref and they didn't have any place in that country given the passive-aggressive attitude to non-French speakers.

    Overnight people packed their bags and moved to Toronto. Businesses, individuals, if you were either Anglo, or non-French immigrant, you got out.

    But that had an economic consequence.Quebec no longer generated the bulk of Canadian GDP. Ontario (the province where Toronto was located) did. And suddenly Quebec independence was no longer viable - because big (Anglo) business had fled. Which is why there hasn't been another ref since.

    Scotland isn't quite in the post-1995 Quebec landscape. No big business has fled, mainly because they all think independence won't happen. The oil price has collapsed from 2014 levels, but Scots don't feel it the way say Venezuelans or Russians do, because transfers from the UK govt have cushioned the effect.

    The independence movement in Scotland will only collapse if business starts to move south. But that will only happen if they lose a second ref. But they could win a second ref because voters don't realise that there might be an exodus after, in the same way 1995 Quebec didn't realise there would be an exodus. They might look at England after Brexit and think, "Nissan hasn't left, what if we're more like the English in strength than those weak Quebecois?"
    But there is another very big difference between Quebec and Scotland

    Quebec has the power to call an indy referendum whenever the Quebec government wants. That's the Canadian Constitution. It seems mad to me, but there it is.

    Edinburgh does not have that power. It is expressly reserved to the British government at Westminster

    Holyrood knows that if they call another vote, and lose, London will not grant another for 40 years. If ever. The instability will not be tolerated. That's it.

    Sindyref2 is their last chance for many decades and they have to win this time. Which is why they need to wait for polls to be heavily in their favour - say 60/40 - for a couple of years. And then they have to persuade London to agree. As the polls tell London to say No?

    It really is very hard for Holyrood to line up all these ducks to be shot in one go.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    edited July 2021

    I thought it was a bit odd when i turned on the coverage last night...i presumed it was nust because it was Day 1 and / or something to do with covid....but no.

    Discovery have sold back some of the rights to the BBC, allowing the Games to remain on free-to-air TV – but only around 10 per cent of the action.

    Discussed on here earlier today. Two streams only apparently.

    Capitalism in action, hurrah!
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, the National Trust is looking for a new Chair. You can write in and suggest names.

    Chair McChairface?

    Is that the idea?
    You are all being very silly!

    They want names of PEOPLE. Presumably before they give the job to Dido Harding or Cressida Dick or some other useless woman.

    Perhaps they'll just pick someone with an apposite surname, like the RHS, whose President is called Keith Weed.
    Could they give it to Amanda Spielman?

    Not because she’d be any good, but because it would mean she would finally fuck off out of education and stop making the lives of children much more unpleasant and less safe.
    Go on, I dare you. Write in and suggest her, in precisely those terms.
    We could start a competition: suggesting the most inappropriate and uselessly incompetent person to chair the NT and see whether any of them are appointed.

    I'll start:-

    Dido Harding
    Cressida Dick
    Theresa May
    Toby Young
    Julia Hartley Brewer
    Prince Charles
    Prince Andrew
    Margaret Hodge
    Evgeny Lebedev
    Mike Ashley
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,800
    DougSeal said:

    BTW, some PBers may recall that the other day I found £20 in our garden. Well this afternoon, after mowing, I found another £20 in almost the same spot.

    Very puzzling.

    Is someone playing an elaborate prank? Are these new plastic £20s or old fashioned paper ones?
    Pukka plastic notes.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,116
    dixiedean said:

    Avoided the Olympics Road Race all day to watch on Eurosport on replay.
    There is no commentary!
    Is anything less comprehensible an event with no one to guide you?
    Especially as everyone has changed colours from the Tour into national uniforms.
    Some Belgians are setting the pace. For van Aert I assume. But I don't even know the route, so no idea how long this climb is.
    I appreciate the commentary 100% more now.

    I watched the last half hour on BBC and they were largely reliably misleading in what was going on.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Paul Lever @paul_lever
    The future of the Nordstream pipeline was decided in a meeting between Chancellor Merkel and President Biden. The EU was not involved, nor were other member states consulted. Can Germany credibly claim that it favours a common European foreign policy?


    https://twitter.com/paul_lever/status/1418972285516587014?s=20

    AIUI the Russian company involved purchased Gerhard Schroder - more or less - (Greensill style?).

    Now Germany needs to find a way to extract Ukraine from under the bus where they just threw it.

    I'm quite interested as to how this is violating EU energy policy.
    Given the Nordstream pipeline had just a single contract underpinning it (between a collection of Germany power companies on the one side and Gazprom on the other), it's unclear to me why either any other EU country or the EU itself would have had a say in its future.

    While still in the EU, the UK and Norway (well, really Shell, Exxon and Statoil) created the Langeled pipeline, and I'm pretty sure than neither the EU nor any other EU countries were involved. (Except possibly Ireland, because they had a reexport agreement in place with the UK.)
    I think there has been a directive or two since. Consequences for Ukraine look quite extreme. But they have some rights under their association agreement with the EU.

    Refs:
    https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-poland-condemn-nord-stream-2-deal-vow-action/
    https://www.politico.eu/article/us-and-germany-have-nord-stream-2-pipeline-deal-but-lack-authority-to-implement-it/
    Sure.

    But ultimately, it is in the interests of Germany to have as many pipelines going into then as possible. It's probably in the interests of the broader EU to have similar, although the rise of LNG makes natural gas security generally better for importers.

    It sucks, of course, for Ukraine. Because their leverage over Russia was stopping gas exports to Europe. But LNG was also beginning to chip away at that leverage.
    That was leverage Russia had over Ukraine. Whenever Ukraine tried to increase its fees Russia switched off the gas.

    Now they can do that without losing hard currency.

    Germany has just fucked Eastern Europe

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.
    Sounds like a stiff challenge.
    If you want to talk about my love life, I have an announcement to make

    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow
    What happened to Mrs T ...er, Mrs Leon?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Anyhoo we've had a very informative view of the bigotry of the Cybernats today and the defence of them by the other Cybernats.

    Not one has the gonads to come out and say Dickson is talking offensive crap and Malcolm needs to apologise and STFU for a bit

    It is revealing

    I wonder if it has dawned on them that they really ain't getting a sindyref2 for a long time? Hence the bitter irritation
    I don't think it is that.

    I think there's more a dawning realisation that if we have Indyref2 and they lose it then that it is for Scottish Independence for a very long time.

    A bit like Quebec, there was a second referendum which the Nats lost by 1% in 1995 and that was it, for a generation and then some.

    I think it may explain Nicola Sturgeon's reticence on Indyref2.
    I dunno, I think I might be nearer the truth

    There really was an expectation that after the Holyrood election there would be this unstoppable momentum towards sindyref2, incredible moral pressure on Boris, the Tories would cave. At the same time people like malc thought Alba would win six seats at least, putting pressure on Sturgeon to go for it

    None of that has happened, pressure for a vote has dissipated, rather than grown, the polls have not budged. NO have a small lead, a vote isn't happening til after the next GE, and even then it is extremely hard to force

    Sindyref2 now recedes towards 2030, I don't expect one until the late 2020s, at the earliest

    That's tough for a lot of Nats who thought they were on the edge of the next plebiscite.

    And of course by, say, 2028 or whatever, the UK will have drifted further from the EU and indy in the EU will seem even more of a wrench.....
    Bad take, I think. Or premature at best. It's driven too much by what you want to be the case. Once Covid is over I expect Sturgeon to be right on it for Sindy. People underestimate her and they do so in 2 ways. 1. That she doesn't really want to fight for Sindy because she's happy with her current top dog position. Think that's very clear bollocks. 2. That she's in any case powerless because Johnson can just say No and that's the end of it. Also bollocks. The situation is more nuanced than this. A ref by 2025 is drifting towards 2/1 and for me that's getting close to being worth a look.
    Since the angry squad appears to have retired for the night I shall chance a reply.

    I think you're right on your first point. Nicola Sturgeon obviously wants to achieve independence.

    How she goes about it is rather more complicated. Boris Johnson's obstructionism is a genuinely serious impediment, but even more importantly she has work to do with public opinion at home. Let's set aside whether or not there's a tiny margin in favour of independence in one poll or a tiny margin against in another: the general pattern is that Scotland is split right down the middle on this question. So long as this is the case, there is (a) the serious risk of losing a second referendum (in which case, the Quebec precedent comes into play - she has to be concerned that her cause might be sunk for a very long time); but also (b) the serious risk of having to undertake a state-building project to which almost half of the country did not consent.

    The difficulties posed by scenario (b) ought not to be underestimated. We've seen what's happened with Brexit: five years since the referendum it is still heartily resented by a substantial section of public opinion, who continue to blame it for all manner of problems - and that was "only" a decision to leave a trading bloc. Secession from a full political union that has been around for over three centuries is an order of magnitude more complex, and liable to be very expensive for the Scottish taxpayer to boot.

    If we assume that the Scottish Government will ask for a Section 30 order once the immediate Plague crisis abates, and that the UK Government refuses to grant it, then the former can try to rally public opinion against the latter by claiming that Scotland is being held against its will - but there have been years of complaints already, along the lines of 'being removed from the EU against our will' and 'a material change of circumstances justifies a second vote', and to what effect? There's no evidence that a substantial, settled majority of public opinion is prepared to secede in a rematch. So, if that still doesn't change, what then?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Ok I now believe in ghosts.

    I mean only the ghost of Monty could be behind this.



    https://twitter.com/ArmyJew/status/1418877863634382853

    Edit - Definitely the Ghost of Monty.

    https://twitter.com/ArmyJew/status/1418882831577714694

    Relatively unknown except by General Marshall who plucked him out of obscurity because of some work that Ike did for him. Brought him to General Staff and mentored him. Sent him to Africa to run Torch. Passed up the opportunity to command Overlord because he though Ike would do a better job.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.
    Sounds like a stiff challenge.
    If you want to talk about my love life, I have an announcement to make

    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow
    What happened to Mrs T ...er, Mrs Leon?
    We *consciously uncoupled* a year ago. It was jolly sad for both. We move on, and I draw a veil....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.
    Sounds like a stiff challenge.
    If you want to talk about my love life, I have an announcement to make

    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow
    What happened to Mrs T ...er, Mrs Leon?
    We *consciously uncoupled* a year ago. It was jolly sad for both. We move on, and I draw a veil....
    Sorry to hear that. But onwards and, er upwards, eh?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Thinking about the NT job more seriously, Trevor Phillips might be a good choice.

    He wrote a very good article about how best to approach the good and bad in Britain's history - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trevor-phillips-when-you-erase-a-nations-past-you-threaten-its-future-xx9rqzqh9.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735
    pigeon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Anyhoo we've had a very informative view of the bigotry of the Cybernats today and the defence of them by the other Cybernats.

    Not one has the gonads to come out and say Dickson is talking offensive crap and Malcolm needs to apologise and STFU for a bit

    It is revealing

    I wonder if it has dawned on them that they really ain't getting a sindyref2 for a long time? Hence the bitter irritation
    I don't think it is that.

    I think there's more a dawning realisation that if we have Indyref2 and they lose it then that it is for Scottish Independence for a very long time.

    A bit like Quebec, there was a second referendum which the Nats lost by 1% in 1995 and that was it, for a generation and then some.

    I think it may explain Nicola Sturgeon's reticence on Indyref2.
    I dunno, I think I might be nearer the truth

    There really was an expectation that after the Holyrood election there would be this unstoppable momentum towards sindyref2, incredible moral pressure on Boris, the Tories would cave. At the same time people like malc thought Alba would win six seats at least, putting pressure on Sturgeon to go for it

    None of that has happened, pressure for a vote has dissipated, rather than grown, the polls have not budged. NO have a small lead, a vote isn't happening til after the next GE, and even then it is extremely hard to force

    Sindyref2 now recedes towards 2030, I don't expect one until the late 2020s, at the earliest

    That's tough for a lot of Nats who thought they were on the edge of the next plebiscite.

    And of course by, say, 2028 or whatever, the UK will have drifted further from the EU and indy in the EU will seem even more of a wrench.....
    Bad take, I think. Or premature at best. It's driven too much by what you want to be the case. Once Covid is over I expect Sturgeon to be right on it for Sindy. People underestimate her and they do so in 2 ways. 1. That she doesn't really want to fight for Sindy because she's happy with her current top dog position. Think that's very clear bollocks. 2. That she's in any case powerless because Johnson can just say No and that's the end of it. Also bollocks. The situation is more nuanced than this. A ref by 2025 is drifting towards 2/1 and for me that's getting close to being worth a look.
    Since the angry squad appears to have retired for the night I shall chance a reply.

    I think you're right on your first point. Nicola Sturgeon obviously wants to achieve independence.

    How she goes about it is rather more complicated. Boris Johnson's obstructionism is a genuinely serious impediment, but even more importantly she has work to do with public opinion at home. Let's set aside whether or not there's a tiny margin in favour of independence in one poll or a tiny margin against in another: the general pattern is that Scotland is split right down the middle on this question. So long as this is the case, there is (a) the serious risk of losing a second referendum (in which case, the Quebec precedent comes into play - she has to be concerned that her cause might be sunk for a very long time); but also (b) the serious risk of having to undertake a state-building project to which almost half of the country did not consent.

    The difficulties posed by scenario (b) ought not to be underestimated. We've seen what's happened with Brexit: five years since the referendum it is still heartily resented by a substantial section of public opinion, who continue to blame it for all manner of problems - and that was "only" a decision to leave a trading bloc. Secession from a full political union that has been around for over three centuries is an order of magnitude more complex, and liable to be very expensive for the Scottish taxpayer to boot.

    If we assume that the Scottish Government will ask for a Section 30 order once the immediate Plague crisis abates, and that the UK Government refuses to grant it, then the former can try to rally public opinion against the latter by claiming that Scotland is being held against its will - but there have been years of complaints already, along the lines of 'being removed from the EU against our will' and 'a material change of circumstances justifies a second vote', and to what effect? There's no evidence that a substantial, settled majority of public opinion is prepared to secede in a rematch. So, if that still doesn't change, what then?
    Yes, that's accurate. I think Sindy is rather stuck, as a cause. Lots of passionate support, but also lots of passionate opposition.

    It may be in this holding pattern for many many years

  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Paul Lever @paul_lever
    The future of the Nordstream pipeline was decided in a meeting between Chancellor Merkel and President Biden. The EU was not involved, nor were other member states consulted. Can Germany credibly claim that it favours a common European foreign policy?


    https://twitter.com/paul_lever/status/1418972285516587014?s=20

    AIUI the Russian company involved purchased Gerhard Schroder - more or less - (Greensill style?).

    Now Germany needs to find a way to extract Ukraine from under the bus where they just threw it.

    I'm quite interested as to how this is violating EU energy policy.
    Given the Nordstream pipeline had just a single contract underpinning it (between a collection of Germany power companies on the one side and Gazprom on the other), it's unclear to me why either any other EU country or the EU itself would have had a say in its future.

    While still in the EU, the UK and Norway (well, really Shell, Exxon and Statoil) created the Langeled pipeline, and I'm pretty sure than neither the EU nor any other EU countries were involved. (Except possibly Ireland, because they had a reexport agreement in place with the UK.)
    I think there has been a directive or two since. Consequences for Ukraine look quite extreme. But they have some rights under their association agreement with the EU.

    Refs:
    https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-poland-condemn-nord-stream-2-deal-vow-action/
    https://www.politico.eu/article/us-and-germany-have-nord-stream-2-pipeline-deal-but-lack-authority-to-implement-it/
    Sure.

    But ultimately, it is in the interests of Germany to have as many pipelines going into then as possible. It's probably in the interests of the broader EU to have similar, although the rise of LNG makes natural gas security generally better for importers.

    It sucks, of course, for Ukraine. Because their leverage over Russia was stopping gas exports to Europe. But LNG was also beginning to chip away at that leverage.
    That was leverage Russia had over Ukraine. Whenever Ukraine tried to increase its fees Russia switched off the gas.

    Now they can do that without losing hard currency.

    Germany has just fucked Eastern Europe

    Ukraine revenue from gas transfer fees *was* running at £2 billion a year.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Paul Lever @paul_lever
    The future of the Nordstream pipeline was decided in a meeting between Chancellor Merkel and President Biden. The EU was not involved, nor were other member states consulted. Can Germany credibly claim that it favours a common European foreign policy?


    https://twitter.com/paul_lever/status/1418972285516587014?s=20

    AIUI the Russian company involved purchased Gerhard Schroder - more or less - (Greensill style?).

    Now Germany needs to find a way to extract Ukraine from under the bus where they just threw it.

    I'm quite interested as to how this is violating EU energy policy.
    Given the Nordstream pipeline had just a single contract underpinning it (between a collection of Germany power companies on the one side and Gazprom on the other), it's unclear to me why either any other EU country or the EU itself would have had a say in its future.

    While still in the EU, the UK and Norway (well, really Shell, Exxon and Statoil) created the Langeled pipeline, and I'm pretty sure than neither the EU nor any other EU countries were involved. (Except possibly Ireland, because they had a reexport agreement in place with the UK.)
    I think there has been a directive or two since. Consequences for Ukraine look quite extreme. But they have some rights under their association agreement with the EU.

    Refs:
    https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-poland-condemn-nord-stream-2-deal-vow-action/
    https://www.politico.eu/article/us-and-germany-have-nord-stream-2-pipeline-deal-but-lack-authority-to-implement-it/
    Sure.

    But ultimately, it is in the interests of Germany to have as many pipelines going into then as possible. It's probably in the interests of the broader EU to have similar, although the rise of LNG makes natural gas security generally better for importers.

    It sucks, of course, for Ukraine. Because their leverage over Russia was stopping gas exports to Europe. But LNG was also beginning to chip away at that leverage.
    That was leverage Russia had over Ukraine. Whenever Ukraine tried to increase its fees Russia switched off the gas.

    Now they can do that without losing hard currency.

    Germany has just fucked Eastern Europe

    Again.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408
    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    He was an absolutely core component of the Leave campaign, and without him, maybe the vote would have gone a different way.

    Indeed, but from the same article

    Cummings is obsessed with winning. Or rather beating the clowns or idiots on the other side. He defeated the northeast assembly. He defeated the Alternative Vote. Brexit is no different. He wasn’t FOR Brexit, he was just against the people who were against it.

    The entire Nation was screwed, not because the chief architects thought Brexit was a good idea, they both thought it was merely a good way to fuck over somebody else.

    And still some people here are cheering for it...
    This just isn't true, Scott, and until you learn why you are wrong, you will never heal your Brexit psychosis

    I'll spell it out for you one more time. Cummings is a kind of revolutionary. He believes the British state was locked into permanent stagnation, favouring one class over all the others - the London Remainer class, essentially. He felt that this was wrong, and that the UK was never going to reform in the radical way needed until it was released from the anti-democratic structures of the EU. To succeed in this reform, Brexit was not necessary - but not sufficient. Hence his later frustration with Boris - not radical enough.

    You can disagree with this, but this is what he sincerely believed - and believes. He didn't do Brexit to "fuck over people" - tho he surely enjoyed winning as an underdog - who wouldn't? He thinks Brexit is a good idea, still. As he said in his Laura K interview.
    The London Remainer class is an imaginary construct.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639

    DougSeal said:

    BTW, some PBers may recall that the other day I found £20 in our garden. Well this afternoon, after mowing, I found another £20 in almost the same spot.

    Very puzzling.

    Is someone playing an elaborate prank? Are these new plastic £20s or old fashioned paper ones?
    Pukka plastic notes.
    I thought you were going to say you found it in coins.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.
    Sounds like a stiff challenge.
    If you want to talk about my love life, I have an announcement to make

    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow
    What happened to Mrs T ...er, Mrs Leon?
    We *consciously uncoupled* a year ago. It was jolly sad for both. We move on, and I draw a veil....
    Sorry to hear that. But onwards and, er upwards, eh?
    Thanks, and yes. I'm not sure the lovely vet nurse is forever, but it's a pleasant distraction. Also I get a discount on worming
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,388

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Liverpool has already lost World Heritage Status:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57927744
    Is that because of Brexit, or in spite of?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    He was an absolutely core component of the Leave campaign, and without him, maybe the vote would have gone a different way.

    Indeed, but from the same article

    Cummings is obsessed with winning. Or rather beating the clowns or idiots on the other side. He defeated the northeast assembly. He defeated the Alternative Vote. Brexit is no different. He wasn’t FOR Brexit, he was just against the people who were against it.

    The entire Nation was screwed, not because the chief architects thought Brexit was a good idea, they both thought it was merely a good way to fuck over somebody else.

    And still some people here are cheering for it...
    This just isn't true, Scott, and until you learn why you are wrong, you will never heal your Brexit psychosis

    I'll spell it out for you one more time. Cummings is a kind of revolutionary. He believes the British state was locked into permanent stagnation, favouring one class over all the others - the London Remainer class, essentially. He felt that this was wrong, and that the UK was never going to reform in the radical way needed until it was released from the anti-democratic structures of the EU. To succeed in this reform, Brexit was not necessary - but not sufficient. Hence his later frustration with Boris - not radical enough.

    You can disagree with this, but this is what he sincerely believed - and believes. He didn't do Brexit to "fuck over people" - tho he surely enjoyed winning as an underdog - who wouldn't? He thinks Brexit is a good idea, still. As he said in his Laura K interview.
    The London Remainer class is an imaginary construct.
    It absolutely is not. You're part of it
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,388
    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    ALRIGHT I'LL BUY A CHEESE FLAKER

    Don’t all your standard 99p graters come with a single blade for flaking?

    I’ve had 2 of them in the last 20 years (the posh metal ones for 5.99) and they’ve worked fine
    Yes, of course.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408
    Charles said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Most Scottish people are perfectly delightful and friendly. But there is a sizeable hardcore of the Nat vote and, especially, Nat activism which harbours instinctive dislike of the English. If you want to see it check Scottish football fans during an England game against Anyone Else

    You don't get it.

    Supporting "anyone against England" is not because we hate the English.

    It's because the English are such insufferable winners.

    You have been going on about 1 match for 55 years.
    I've seen this in Scotland for myself. It's not just 1966 (and I can see why that grates, due to English TV coverage). There is more. There is real dislike, even hatred, at times
    Indeed. Last time me and the wife were in Scotland we were given some real anti-English zingers from Scots we met on the assumption we were both American (the wife tends to do most of the talking in our relationship). It’s real.

    I was in Queensferry some years ago for a for a friend’s wedding to a local girl.

    Only place - anywhere in the world - I’ve been made to feel unwelcome because of my accent
    Exactly how Brummie is it though?
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298
    edited July 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Quite some spin from Devi in response to Javid's tweet:

    This must be painful to read for those who were severely ill & for those who lost loved ones to COVID. It wasn’t because they were weak- just unnecessarily exposed to a virus. And wanting to avoid getting COVID isn’t ‘cowering’- it’s being sensible & looking out for others.

    https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1419028469514752003?s=20

    She appears to be objecting to this: "Please - if you haven’t yet - get your jab, as we learn to live with, rather than cower from, this virus."

    Is her objection to people getting vaccinated?

    Or that we will have to live with COVID?

    She was a Zero COVID fan, then argued "zero didn't mean zero".....

    I think she's objecting to the ridiculous infantile language. She probably expects the Health Sec not to talk like a total dick.
    I don't know what he said. But she seems to have found herself wedged at least for a while down soundbite alley recently:

    "Zero Covid is misunderstood - it's about zero tolerance for COVID-19, and using a vaccine & public health strategies to stop transmission of COVID within communities, push to lowest possible #s, and get back more normal life."

    She may well have some good points. But I'm disinclined to listen to her when she lectures on the semantics of a coinage that is basically a mudthrower's term and which has only been around for less than two years to boot. That said, if she has changed her mind or developed her thinking, there's nothing wrong with that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2021
    alex_ said:

    One might also add that the Government have been running "trials" of large scale events which haven't involved compulsory vaccination, the results of which haven't largely been published in detail. If it turned out that things like football matches (being outdoors etc) were not particularly notable "spreader events", then this would be a problem for the govt trying to assert a "public health benefit" defence.

    If they think it's essential that everyone gets vaccinated then maybe they should just legislate for it...

    I think the trial actually showed that the virus spread much more in the football events, probably due to the fact people are shouting and cheering more.
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Vaxports for (open air) sporting events with 20k plus. But not to travel with millions of people on eg. the London Underground.

    The question becomes - are the passports being used as a public health measure. Or actually as a form of coercion, that doesn't actually have a direct public health purpose?

    I wonder if we might potentially get to a point where the courts might be interested in getting involved (having been studiously determined to stay out of the discussion thus far).

    It is both surely.

    Besides a nudge to get people vaccinated does have a direct public health benefit.
    But it's targeted co-ercion which is why i think the courts might get involved. Put it another way - and i'm deliberately using an unlikely example. Suppose they said you had to prove vaccination to attend a 20k+ football match. But not to attend a 20k+ rugby match. I don't think the courts would stand for that.
    The courts haven't gotten involved through the pandemic because there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but is it targetted coersion?

    Plus anyway you can't compare mass transit to mass events, since for the entire pandemic mass events have had different rules to mass transit.

    If there's to be restrictions then I'd rather they be on the unvaccinated than everyone else. Screw them, they should get their jab rather than put the rest of us back into lockdown.
    You have previously expressed the view that it wouldn't be necessary to lockdown again. This smacks a bit of the Government not implementing measures to prevent lockdown, but to accommodate public opinion.
    I personally don't think it will be necessary, but I'm a bit of a hawk and I recognise that. I also personally thought we should have the Stage 3 lifting of lockdown in March instead of May, the Stage 4 in June instead of July. The government isn't following my advice and is being more cautious throughout.

    I don't think that this step of vaxports is necessary, but if there's going to be any restrictions then I'd infinitely prefer they be inconveniencing those too stupid or too selfish to get vaccinated than anyone else.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,830
    edited July 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.
    Sounds like a stiff challenge.
    If you want to talk about my love life, I have an announcement to make

    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow
    Is she mixed-race?
    I had a mixed race boyfriend once, did both the 100m and triathlon.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,612
    Quite a “divided” for the Scottish tax payer too….

    The SNP say that after independence 'the Scottish Government is likely to require around thirty-five thousand new posts'

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1419056546940600322?s=20
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.
    Sounds like a stiff challenge.
    If you want to talk about my love life, I have an announcement to make

    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow
    What happened to Mrs T ...er, Mrs Leon?
    We *consciously uncoupled* a year ago. It was jolly sad for both. We move on, and I draw a veil....
    Sorry to hear that. But onwards and, er upwards, eh?
    Thanks, and yes. I'm not sure the lovely vet nurse is forever, but it's a pleasant distraction. Also I get a discount on worming
    That should help you avoid the perils of sushi.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237951-fish-used-for-sushi-now-carry-283-times-more-parasites-than-in-1980s/
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    edited July 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Thinking about the NT job more seriously, Trevor Phillips might be a good choice.

    He wrote a very good article about how best to approach the good and bad in Britain's history - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trevor-phillips-when-you-erase-a-nations-past-you-threaten-its-future-xx9rqzqh9.

    If we are more serious, I wonder about Matthew Taylor.

    Did not used to be a fan, but I have mellowed on him a little.

    My other maundering is a duo of a figurehead thinker and an administrative maker-happener.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ok I now believe in ghosts.

    I mean only the ghost of Monty could be behind this.



    https://twitter.com/ArmyJew/status/1418877863634382853

    Edit - Definitely the Ghost of Monty.

    https://twitter.com/ArmyJew/status/1418882831577714694

    Monty not perhaps being the best strategist himself, of course...
    Ssh. You'll trigger the Brexiteers.
    My grandfather would have been a Brexiteer, had he lived, but he would have been far more cutting about Monty than any Remainer.
    What always annoyed me about Monty is that he never really acknowledged how lucky he was compared to his predecessors in North Africa.

    He had a German army denuded of fuel and essential supplies, plus all the enigma decrypts. And he just did "ok".
    What annoyed my grandfather was the way he mishandled his tanks.

    If I tell you he was a staff officer in 9th Armoured Brigade and his elder brother was a squadron commander in the same brigade, you will understand why.
    My grandfather was on Jumbo Wilson’s staff so they may well have encountered each other!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,076
    Leon said:

    Candy said:



    I think there's more a dawning realisation that if we have Indyref2 and they lose it then that it is for Scottish Independence for a very long time.

    A bit like Quebec, there was a second referendum which the Nats lost by 1% in 1995 and that was it, for a generation and then some.

    I think it may explain Nicola Sturgeon's reticence on Indyref2.


    Careful. The 1995 Quebec referendum changed facts on the ground in ways that the 2014 Scottish ref (and the Quebec 1980 ref) didn't.

    Prior to 1995, Montreal was the most established commercial city in Canada, it was like the London of Canada, because all big businesses established an office there, as it had the "network effect".

    A big part of the Quebec independence movement was based around the idea that "we" generate more than half Canada's GDP, why are we sharing this with the rest of Canada?

    After 1995 ref - where No won by 50.58% to 49.42% - the anglo-canadians were convinced that the next referendum was "sure" to win independence in the next ref and they didn't have any place in that country given the passive-aggressive attitude to non-French speakers.

    Overnight people packed their bags and moved to Toronto. Businesses, individuals, if you were either Anglo, or non-French immigrant, you got out.

    But that had an economic consequence.Quebec no longer generated the bulk of Canadian GDP. Ontario (the province where Toronto was located) did. And suddenly Quebec independence was no longer viable - because big (Anglo) business had fled. Which is why there hasn't been another ref since.

    Scotland isn't quite in the post-1995 Quebec landscape. No big business has fled, mainly because they all think independence won't happen. The oil price has collapsed from 2014 levels, but Scots don't feel it the way say Venezuelans or Russians do, because transfers from the UK govt have cushioned the effect.

    The independence movement in Scotland will only collapse if business starts to move south. But that will only happen if they lose a second ref. But they could win a second ref because voters don't realise that there might be an exodus after, in the same way 1995 Quebec didn't realise there would be an exodus. They might look at England after Brexit and think, "Nissan hasn't left, what if we're more like the English in strength than those weak Quebecois?"
    But there is another very big difference between Quebec and Scotland

    Quebec has the power to call an indy referendum whenever the Quebec government wants. That's the Canadian Constitution. It seems mad to me, but there it is.

    Edinburgh does not have that power. It is expressly reserved to the British government at Westminster

    Holyrood knows that if they call another vote, and lose, London will not grant another for 40 years. If ever. The instability will not be tolerated. That's it.

    Sindyref2 is their last chance for many decades and they have to win this time. Which is why they need to wait for polls to be heavily in their favour - say 60/40 - for a couple of years. And then they have to persuade London to agree. As the polls tell London to say No?

    It really is very hard for Holyrood to line up all these ducks to be shot in one go.
    Here is another vital difference. Quebec is c 24% of the population of Canada. Around 3 times as big a proportion as Scotland is to the UK.
    You would need 2/3rds of the seats in Anglo Canada to win a majority without it.
    You can't govern the whole country for very lengthy periods whilst being totally dismissive of the place.
    Ironically, Alberta is more likely to have the next referendum. As you can win without it.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,334

    alex_ said:

    One might also add that the Government have been running "trials" of large scale events which haven't involved compulsory vaccination, the results of which haven't largely been published in detail. If it turned out that things like football matches (being outdoors etc) were not particularly notable "spreader events", then this would be a problem for the govt trying to assert a "public health benefit" defence.

    If they think it's essential that everyone gets vaccinated then maybe they should just legislate for it...

    I think the trial actually showed that the virus spread much more in the football events, probably due to the fact people are shouting and cheering more.
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Vaxports for (open air) sporting events with 20k plus. But not to travel with millions of people on eg. the London Underground.

    The question becomes - are the passports being used as a public health measure. Or actually as a form of coercion, that doesn't actually have a direct public health purpose?

    I wonder if we might potentially get to a point where the courts might be interested in getting involved (having been studiously determined to stay out of the discussion thus far).

    It is both surely.

    Besides a nudge to get people vaccinated does have a direct public health benefit.
    But it's targeted co-ercion which is why i think the courts might get involved. Put it another way - and i'm deliberately using an unlikely example. Suppose they said you had to prove vaccination to attend a 20k+ football match. But not to attend a 20k+ rugby match. I don't think the courts would stand for that.
    The courts haven't gotten involved through the pandemic because there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but is it targetted coersion?

    Plus anyway you can't compare mass transit to mass events, since for the entire pandemic mass events have had different rules to mass transit.

    If there's to be restrictions then I'd rather they be on the unvaccinated than everyone else. Screw them, they should get their jab rather than put the rest of us back into lockdown.
    You have previously expressed the view that it wouldn't be necessary to lockdown again. This smacks a bit of the Government not implementing measures to prevent lockdown, but to accommodate public opinion.
    I personally don't think it will be necessary, but I'm a bit of a hawk and I recognise that. I also personally thought we should have the Stage 3 lifting of lockdown in March instead of May, the Stage 4 in June instead of July. The government isn't following my advice and is being more cautious throughout.

    I don't think that this step of vaxports is necessary, but if there's going to be any restrictions then I'd infinitely prefer they be inconveniencing those too stupid or too selfish to get vaccinated than anyone else.
    And you dont give a shit if they also inconvenience those who reject government overreach....how extremely liberal of you
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,116
    edited July 2021

    alex_ said:

    One might also add that the Government have been running "trials" of large scale events which haven't involved compulsory vaccination, the results of which haven't largely been published in detail. If it turned out that things like football matches (being outdoors etc) were not particularly notable "spreader events", then this would be a problem for the govt trying to assert a "public health benefit" defence.

    If they think it's essential that everyone gets vaccinated then maybe they should just legislate for it...

    I think the trial actually showed that the virus spread much more in the football events, probably due to the fact people are shouting and cheering more.
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Vaxports for (open air) sporting events with 20k plus. But not to travel with millions of people on eg. the London Underground.

    The question becomes - are the passports being used as a public health measure. Or actually as a form of coercion, that doesn't actually have a direct public health purpose?

    I wonder if we might potentially get to a point where the courts might be interested in getting involved (having been studiously determined to stay out of the discussion thus far).

    It is both surely.

    Besides a nudge to get people vaccinated does have a direct public health benefit.
    But it's targeted co-ercion which is why i think the courts might get involved. Put it another way - and i'm deliberately using an unlikely example. Suppose they said you had to prove vaccination to attend a 20k+ football match. But not to attend a 20k+ rugby match. I don't think the courts would stand for that.
    The courts haven't gotten involved through the pandemic because there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but is it targetted coersion?

    Plus anyway you can't compare mass transit to mass events, since for the entire pandemic mass events have had different rules to mass transit.

    If there's to be restrictions then I'd rather they be on the unvaccinated than everyone else. Screw them, they should get their jab rather than put the rest of us back into lockdown.
    You have previously expressed the view that it wouldn't be necessary to lockdown again. This smacks a bit of the Government not implementing measures to prevent lockdown, but to accommodate public opinion.
    I personally don't think it will be necessary, but I'm a bit of a hawk and I recognise that. I also personally thought we should have the Stage 3 lifting of lockdown in March instead of May, the Stage 4 in June instead of July. The government isn't following my advice and is being more cautious throughout.

    I don't think that this step of vaxports is necessary, but if there's going to be any restrictions then I'd infinitely prefer they be inconveniencing those too stupid or too selfish to get vaccinated than anyone else.
    I think it is very harsh to accuse 20-30 year old, in particular, of being “too stupid or selfish”. I mean they even have health authorities around the world telling them that the AZ vaccine is to dangerous for them to take. It would only be natural for some to have concerns about other issues emerging in future. And this on top of the sacrifices they have been required to make over the last 15 months for, it is usually implied, the good of others. Older vaccine refuseniks, more reasonably.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Thinking about the NT job more seriously, Trevor Phillips might be a good choice.

    He wrote a very good article about how best to approach the good and bad in Britain's history - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trevor-phillips-when-you-erase-a-nations-past-you-threaten-its-future-xx9rqzqh9.

    If we are more serious, I wonder about Matthew Taylor.

    Did not used to be a fan, but I have mellowed on him a little.

    My other maundering is a duo of a figurehead thinker and an administrative maker-happener.
    Don't know much about him. Will look him up.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2021
    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    One might also add that the Government have been running "trials" of large scale events which haven't involved compulsory vaccination, the results of which haven't largely been published in detail. If it turned out that things like football matches (being outdoors etc) were not particularly notable "spreader events", then this would be a problem for the govt trying to assert a "public health benefit" defence.

    If they think it's essential that everyone gets vaccinated then maybe they should just legislate for it...

    I think the trial actually showed that the virus spread much more in the football events, probably due to the fact people are shouting and cheering more.
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Vaxports for (open air) sporting events with 20k plus. But not to travel with millions of people on eg. the London Underground.

    The question becomes - are the passports being used as a public health measure. Or actually as a form of coercion, that doesn't actually have a direct public health purpose?

    I wonder if we might potentially get to a point where the courts might be interested in getting involved (having been studiously determined to stay out of the discussion thus far).

    It is both surely.

    Besides a nudge to get people vaccinated does have a direct public health benefit.
    But it's targeted co-ercion which is why i think the courts might get involved. Put it another way - and i'm deliberately using an unlikely example. Suppose they said you had to prove vaccination to attend a 20k+ football match. But not to attend a 20k+ rugby match. I don't think the courts would stand for that.
    The courts haven't gotten involved through the pandemic because there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but is it targetted coersion?

    Plus anyway you can't compare mass transit to mass events, since for the entire pandemic mass events have had different rules to mass transit.

    If there's to be restrictions then I'd rather they be on the unvaccinated than everyone else. Screw them, they should get their jab rather than put the rest of us back into lockdown.
    You have previously expressed the view that it wouldn't be necessary to lockdown again. This smacks a bit of the Government not implementing measures to prevent lockdown, but to accommodate public opinion.
    I personally don't think it will be necessary, but I'm a bit of a hawk and I recognise that. I also personally thought we should have the Stage 3 lifting of lockdown in March instead of May, the Stage 4 in June instead of July. The government isn't following my advice and is being more cautious throughout.

    I don't think that this step of vaxports is necessary, but if there's going to be any restrictions then I'd infinitely prefer they be inconveniencing those too stupid or too selfish to get vaccinated than anyone else.
    And you dont give a shit if they also inconvenience those who reject government overreach....how extremely liberal of you
    I do actually. I've said I oppose vaxports on principle.

    However if there are going to be some illiberal choices to be made this winter, then government overreach affecting all of us is far worse than government overreach affecting those too stupid to get vaccinated.

    Vaxports are wrong in principle but a far lesser evil than another lockdown.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639
    edited July 2021
    Quincel said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Incidentally, talking of supermarkets, just been to M&S in Camden and there was no sign of any shortage of anything, except ready flaked parmesan. That's it.


    Where are these empty shelves?!

    No flaked parmesan? Surely there was a rendering of garments and enough teeth damage to keep an NHS dentist busy for a year of assessment appointments before they do any actual work.
    Oh God, I'm going to have to say it, aren't I? Only a fool buys ready flaked Parmesan. Buy a chunk of Parmesan and grate it yourself. Or flake it if you must.
    Wouldn't that involve up and down movements of the right hand? Very hard work.
    Sounds like a stiff challenge.
    If you want to talk about my love life, I have an announcement to make

    I have a new girlfriend

    She is a veterinary nurse

    She is 23

    And, yes, she is a Corbynite (tho going off him a bit)

    I do not joke. I must just attract them somehow
    Is she mixed-race?
    I had a mixed race boyfriend once, did both the 100m and triathlon.
    I only asked because Leon has said before that he prefers mixed-race women.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Cyclefree said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Thinking about the NT job more seriously, Trevor Phillips might be a good choice.

    He wrote a very good article about how best to approach the good and bad in Britain's history - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trevor-phillips-when-you-erase-a-nations-past-you-threaten-its-future-xx9rqzqh9.

    If we are more serious, I wonder about Matthew Taylor.

    Did not used to be a fan, but I have mellowed on him a little.

    My other maundering is a duo of a figurehead thinker and an administrative maker-happener.
    Don't know much about him. Will look him up.
    If Neil McGregor could be tempted back from Germany, he'd be a good choice too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    One might also add that the Government have been running "trials" of large scale events which haven't involved compulsory vaccination, the results of which haven't largely been published in detail. If it turned out that things like football matches (being outdoors etc) were not particularly notable "spreader events", then this would be a problem for the govt trying to assert a "public health benefit" defence.

    If they think it's essential that everyone gets vaccinated then maybe they should just legislate for it...

    I think the trial actually showed that the virus spread much more in the football events, probably due to the fact people are shouting and cheering more.
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Vaxports for (open air) sporting events with 20k plus. But not to travel with millions of people on eg. the London Underground.

    The question becomes - are the passports being used as a public health measure. Or actually as a form of coercion, that doesn't actually have a direct public health purpose?

    I wonder if we might potentially get to a point where the courts might be interested in getting involved (having been studiously determined to stay out of the discussion thus far).

    It is both surely.

    Besides a nudge to get people vaccinated does have a direct public health benefit.
    But it's targeted co-ercion which is why i think the courts might get involved. Put it another way - and i'm deliberately using an unlikely example. Suppose they said you had to prove vaccination to attend a 20k+ football match. But not to attend a 20k+ rugby match. I don't think the courts would stand for that.
    The courts haven't gotten involved through the pandemic because there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but is it targetted coersion?

    Plus anyway you can't compare mass transit to mass events, since for the entire pandemic mass events have had different rules to mass transit.

    If there's to be restrictions then I'd rather they be on the unvaccinated than everyone else. Screw them, they should get their jab rather than put the rest of us back into lockdown.
    You have previously expressed the view that it wouldn't be necessary to lockdown again. This smacks a bit of the Government not implementing measures to prevent lockdown, but to accommodate public opinion.
    I personally don't think it will be necessary, but I'm a bit of a hawk and I recognise that. I also personally thought we should have the Stage 3 lifting of lockdown in March instead of May, the Stage 4 in June instead of July. The government isn't following my advice and is being more cautious throughout.

    I don't think that this step of vaxports is necessary, but if there's going to be any restrictions then I'd infinitely prefer they be inconveniencing those too stupid or too selfish to get vaccinated than anyone else.
    I think it is very harsh to accuse 20-30 year old, in particular, of being “too stupid or selfish”. Older vaccine refuseniks, more reasonably.
    Not really. The science is that the 20-30 year old should be getting vaccinated.

    If they're refusing to do so because they're gullible enough to fall for some stupid antivaxx video they've seen on TikTok or Twitter then absolutely "too stupid" is the entirely correct term to use.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,334

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    One might also add that the Government have been running "trials" of large scale events which haven't involved compulsory vaccination, the results of which haven't largely been published in detail. If it turned out that things like football matches (being outdoors etc) were not particularly notable "spreader events", then this would be a problem for the govt trying to assert a "public health benefit" defence.

    If they think it's essential that everyone gets vaccinated then maybe they should just legislate for it...

    I think the trial actually showed that the virus spread much more in the football events, probably due to the fact people are shouting and cheering more.
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Vaxports for (open air) sporting events with 20k plus. But not to travel with millions of people on eg. the London Underground.

    The question becomes - are the passports being used as a public health measure. Or actually as a form of coercion, that doesn't actually have a direct public health purpose?

    I wonder if we might potentially get to a point where the courts might be interested in getting involved (having been studiously determined to stay out of the discussion thus far).

    It is both surely.

    Besides a nudge to get people vaccinated does have a direct public health benefit.
    But it's targeted co-ercion which is why i think the courts might get involved. Put it another way - and i'm deliberately using an unlikely example. Suppose they said you had to prove vaccination to attend a 20k+ football match. But not to attend a 20k+ rugby match. I don't think the courts would stand for that.
    The courts haven't gotten involved through the pandemic because there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but is it targetted coersion?

    Plus anyway you can't compare mass transit to mass events, since for the entire pandemic mass events have had different rules to mass transit.

    If there's to be restrictions then I'd rather they be on the unvaccinated than everyone else. Screw them, they should get their jab rather than put the rest of us back into lockdown.
    You have previously expressed the view that it wouldn't be necessary to lockdown again. This smacks a bit of the Government not implementing measures to prevent lockdown, but to accommodate public opinion.
    I personally don't think it will be necessary, but I'm a bit of a hawk and I recognise that. I also personally thought we should have the Stage 3 lifting of lockdown in March instead of May, the Stage 4 in June instead of July. The government isn't following my advice and is being more cautious throughout.

    I don't think that this step of vaxports is necessary, but if there's going to be any restrictions then I'd infinitely prefer they be inconveniencing those too stupid or too selfish to get vaccinated than anyone else.
    And you dont give a shit if they also inconvenience those who reject government overreach....how extremely liberal of you
    I do actually. I've said I oppose vaxports on principle.

    However if there are going to be some illiberal choices to be made this winter, then government overreach affecting all of us is far worse than government overreach affecting those too stupid to get vaccinated.

    Vaxports are wrong in principle but a far lesser evil than another lockdown.
    No imposing vaccine passports is far far worse than just letting the vax decliners take their chances we unlock anyway
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    edited July 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Thinking about the NT job more seriously, Trevor Phillips might be a good choice.

    He wrote a very good article about how best to approach the good and bad in Britain's history - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trevor-phillips-when-you-erase-a-nations-past-you-threaten-its-future-xx9rqzqh9.

    If we are more serious, I wonder about Matthew Taylor.

    Did not used to be a fan, but I have mellowed on him a little.

    My other maundering is a duo of a figurehead thinker and an administrative maker-happener.
    Don't know much about him. Will look him up.
    Son of Laurie Taylor (I did not know that). Has run the RSA since 2006, about when I let my membership lapse. Head of Policy Unit to Blair.

    So some familiarity with running organisations / membership organisations, and a very broad awareness / vision of society and how to deal with varied coalitions. I think the latter is critical for NT as it can be very factional. Presumably well connected.

    The weak point imo may be running very large organisations, but a suitable Deputy could fill that gap.
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298

    kle4 said:

    Off topic: Can anyone explain to me why Stonehenge with the A303 alongside it merits World Heritage Status but Stonehenge without the A303 in sight doesn't?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/23/stonehenge-may-be-next-uk-site-to-lose-world-heritage-status

    Other archaelogical aspects in the surrounding countryside, or presumed archaelogical aspects underground, I would assume. I don't think the tunnel opposers have done a great job of explaining that, though I imagine they still have majority support.

    But I must say the opening seems to suggest a somewhat irrational approach to judging Heritage Status, since I don't see why other sites would have a harsher spotlight thrown on them because of the Liverpool decision. Surely such decisions should be based on the individual situations of each site, the whole point being they are of unique heritage interest. So they should be viewed just as softly or harshly as they were before.
    Not that I expect anyone to care but my parents life is blighted by what they did at Stonehenge. The new visitor centre being built led to far more people diverting off the 303 through their village. It has become a horrific rat run. The idiots who oppose the tunnel spout nonsense about destroying valuable history. Well you’ve had centuries to dig it up and haven’t bothered so far. It can all be surveyed and will be before digging starts.
    I genuinely love history and science, but I doubt that there is anything buried on the plain that will change our view of history. Almost all the shit they spout about Stonehenge is pure supposition. We cannot know what they used it for. Anyone who says different is lying.
    The new visitor centre and the projected tunnel are both crap.

    But the mortise and tenon joints in the trilithons are cool. Talk about built to last!

This discussion has been closed.