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.
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.
I didn’t say anything about antivax videos. They are actually being told BY OFFICIAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES, that they shouldn’t take AZ. Now often this is intended as a nuanced message (take others instead). But it would be only natural for them to have doubts. Especially when the mainstream message is that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit.
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.
I think the disqualifying point is "Head of Policy Unit to Blair". Tory and old uni mate of one of the Cabinet is the one and only essential in the Person Spec.
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.
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.
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.
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
I agree with that, which is what I said. But if the government is going to take an action, the vaxports are better than another lockdown.
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.
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.
I didn’t say anything about antivax videos. They are actually being told BY OFFICIAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES, that they shouldn’t take AZ. Now often this is intended as a nuanced message (take others instead). But it would be only natural for them to have doubts. Especially when the mainstream message is that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit.
They're being told not to take AZ because Pfizer is better and available for their age group.
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.
One thing we seem to now agree on is that if Sindy2 happens and it's another No that is it for a long long time. Hence Sturgeon's cautious gradualist approach.
This is progress because in the past you've signed up to the (imo) ridiculous notion that granting the vote would "set a precedent" and lo the SNP would continue to run at and win elections with yet another Ref as a headline commitment, creating perpetual uncertainty.
We've actually argued this exact point before on more than one occasion and that exact nonsense is what you've tended to come out with. Why you're saying something different when you're talking with somebody else, I don't know and don't care, because it's just terrific to see movement in a positive direction.
Completely O/T but interesting that The Guardian (at the moment) seems to have taken a decision to run with headlining events at the Olympics on their news pages. Maybe even they’ve decided that we all need a bit of cheer.
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.
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
I agree with that, which is what I said. But if the government is going to take an action, the vaxports are better than another lockdown.
Quite a simple heirarchy:
Complete freedom > Vaxports > Another lockdown
Nope complete freedom>Another lockdown>Vax ports for crying out loud your beloved fuckwit party is already talking about monitoring what people eat.....vax ports are a stepping stone for them
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.
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.
I didn’t say anything about antivax videos. They are actually being told BY OFFICIAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES, that they shouldn’t take AZ. Now often this is intended as a nuanced message (take others instead). But it would be only natural for them to have doubts. Especially when the mainstream message is that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit.
They're being told not to take AZ because Pfizer is better and available for their age group.
Completely O/T but interesting that The Guardian (at the moment) seems to have taken a decision to run with headlining events at the Olympics on their news pages. Maybe even they’ve decided that we all need a bit of cheer.
Well the authorities have given a slap down to wild swimming....
Completely O/T but interesting that The Guardian (at the moment) seems to have taken a decision to run with headlining events at the Olympics on their news pages. Maybe even they’ve decided that we all need a bit of cheer.
Well the authorities have given a slap down to wild swimming....
Eurosport has a "We apologise for the lack of commentary bar" along the bottom of the screen. Sadly it is obscuring all the information posted on screen, such as time gaps and names of riders, which would allow you to make sense of the race in the absence of any commentary... Carapaz has got this hasn't he? At least I think that's what's happening.
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.
I think the disqualifying point is "Head of Policy Unit to Blair". Tory and old uni mate of one of the Cabinet is the one and only essential in the Person Spec.
Just noticed the role of Chair of the National Trust is unpaid... so not of much interest to the usual suspects.
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?
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!
The new visitor centre is pretty good - much better than what preceded it.
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.
I think the disqualifying point is "Head of Policy Unit to Blair". Tory and old uni mate of one of the Cabinet is the one and only essential in the Person Spec.
Just noticed the role of Chair of the National Trust is unpaid... so not of much interest to the usual suspects.
Yeah - but think of the cream teas you'll get at all those meetings.
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.
One thing we seem to now agree on is that if Sindy2 happens and it's another No that is it for a long long time. Hence Sturgeon's cautious gradualist approach.
This is progress because in the past you've signed up to the (imo) ridiculous notion that granting the vote would "set a precedent" and lo the SNP would continue to run at and win elections with yet another Ref as a headline commitment, creating perpetual uncertainty.
We've actually argued this exact point before on more than one occasion and that exact nonsense is what you've tended to come out with. Why you're saying something different when you're talking with somebody else, I don't know and don't care, because it's just terrific to see movement in a positive direction.
No, you’re misrepresenting me, but hey. It’s nearly midnight. I’m easy
I’ve always believed what I’m saying now. There WILL be a Sindyref2. But a generation will elapse before it is granted. = minimum 15 years (as in Quebec)
Completely O/T but interesting that The Guardian (at the moment) seems to have taken a decision to run with headlining events at the Olympics on their news pages. Maybe even they’ve decided that we all need a bit of cheer.
Well the authorities have given a slap down to wild swimming....
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.
I think the disqualifying point is "Head of Policy Unit to Blair". Tory and old uni mate of one of the Cabinet is the one and only essential in the Person Spec.
Just noticed the role of Chair of the National Trust is unpaid... so not of much interest to the usual suspects.
Completely O/T but interesting that The Guardian (at the moment) seems to have taken a decision to run with headlining events at the Olympics on their news pages. Maybe even they’ve decided that we all need a bit of cheer.
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.
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
I agree with that, which is what I said. But if the government is going to take an action, the vaxports are better than another lockdown.
Quite a simple heirarchy:
Complete freedom > Vaxports > Another lockdown
Nope complete freedom>Another lockdown>Vax ports for crying out loud your beloved fuckwit party is already talking about monitoring what people eat.....vax ports are a stepping stone for them
No, why should those of us who've done the right thing be locked down in order to protect the NHS and society from those fuckwits who won't get vaccinated?
I don't want anyone locked down, but if anyone has to be this winter then let it be the antivaxxers. I've done my bit, they can take the burden of their own choices.
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
Nope. It's a figment employed to advance right wing populism. There was no such thing as a Remainer until 2016. Class derives from wealth and social status not from how one voted in the EU referendum.
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.
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.
I didn’t say anything about antivax videos. They are actually being told BY OFFICIAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES, that they shouldn’t take AZ. Now often this is intended as a nuanced message (take others instead). But it would be only natural for them to have doubts. Especially when the mainstream message is that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit.
They're being told not to take AZ because Pfizer is better and available for their age group.
They're not being told not to get vaccinated.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Yes and it was bordering on antivaxx conspiracy nonsense.
They're being told "BY OFFICAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES" that they should take Pfizer, not simply that they shouldn't take AZ. To shout out that they're saying don't take AZ without saying "because we think you should take Pfizer instead" is lying by omission.
And the mainstream message is not simply that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit. The JCVI advice is completely crystal clear that it is far, far, far safer for the individual to be vaccinated by Pfizer than the risk of any adverse side effects.
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
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.
One thing we seem to now agree on is that if Sindy2 happens and it's another No that is it for a long long time. Hence Sturgeon's cautious gradualist approach.
This is progress because in the past you've signed up to the (imo) ridiculous notion that granting the vote would "set a precedent" and lo the SNP would continue to run at and win elections with yet another Ref as a headline commitment, creating perpetual uncertainty.
We've actually argued this exact point before on more than one occasion and that exact nonsense is what you've tended to come out with. Why you're saying something different when you're talking with somebody else, I don't know and don't care, because it's just terrific to see movement in a positive direction.
No, you’re misrepresenting me, but hey. It’s nearly midnight. I’m easy
I’ve always believed what I’m saying now. There WILL be a Sindyref2. But a generation will elapse before it is granted. = minimum 15 years (as in Quebec)
Means from 2029 on, approximately
Goodnight
No I'm 100% accurately representing what you used to argue. That we mustn't grant another vote because it would violate the "for a generation" promise and give carte blanche for them to keep having one willy nilly. You've dropped that now. I see that you have and I say that this is good.
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
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.
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.
I didn’t say anything about antivax videos. They are actually being told BY OFFICIAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES, that they shouldn’t take AZ. Now often this is intended as a nuanced message (take others instead). But it would be only natural for them to have doubts. Especially when the mainstream message is that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit.
They're being told not to take AZ because Pfizer is better and available for their age group.
They're not being told not to get vaccinated.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Yes and it was bordering on antivaxx conspiracy nonsense.
They're being told "BY OFFICAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES" that they should take Pfizer, not simply that they shouldn't take AZ. To shout out that they're saying don't take AZ without saying "because we think you should take Pfizer instead" is lying by omission.
And the mainstream message is not simply that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit. The JCVI advice is completely crystal clear that it is far, far, far safer for the individual to be vaccinated by Pfizer than the risk of any adverse side effects.
The JCVI advice is that it's safer if you're 18 but not 17.........
What an utter shit show and grift, Donald Trump would be proud.
Hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations earmarked for a Scottish independence referendum campaign may have been spent on refurbishing the SNP’s headquarters and on legal fees, it has emerged.
Police are investigating allegations of fraud surrounding more than £600,000 that was raised after an appeal by the party in 2017. The controversy threatens to damage Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, and her husband Peter Murrell, chief executive of the SNP.
Officers are expected to issue warrants shortly to obtain financial material from the SNP as they look into 19 complaints about the fighting fund that it had described as “ring-fenced”.
Police are expected to interview Murrell as well as the MSP Colin Beattie, who was reinstated as party treasurer last month. They are also expected to speak to several former party officials who recently resigned over not being shown full accounts by Murrell.
They include the MPs Joanna Cherry and Douglas Chapman, the party’s former treasurer, and three members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee.
Yesterday the party declined to comment on suggestions that some of the donations were spent on a refurbishment of its offices near the Scottish parliament, rumoured within the SNP to have cost £385,000.
Neither would it discuss allegations that the money was spent on legal costs for Murrell and his chief operating officer, Sue Ruddick, in relation to a parliamentary inquiry into the handling of harassment claims against Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader and first minister.
It has also been claimed that the party met legal costs incurred by the MP Alyn Smith after he said without evidence that the Brexit party was a “money-laundering front”. The SNP declined to be drawn.
Hence a lot of the furious tweeting about Javid and much taking of offence…
No. That was because it was utterly insensitive to those with conditions, both physical and mental, and those who have to care for them, who simply don't feel safe. At the very best it was crass wording. It implied cowardice. Cowardice by simply assessing risk differently to a multi-millionaire member of the Cabinet.
Pretty late to the game, and there will probably be a new thread along in a minute:
Sainsburys - Walton Vale, Liverpool: No bottled water at all (My wife will cry, but I'll just point her to the tap) No ice cream or frozen desserts of any kind, though I'm more inclined to blame the hot weather for that (which unlike Southern England has continued today in Merseyside). Quite a few gaps in other areas, though you could always get what you need, though maybe not what you want.
Second time Sainsburys is out of bottled water. Sainsburys in Crosby had none last weekend, but walked over to the Tesco Express opposite and they had loads. Strange.
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.
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.
I didn’t say anything about antivax videos. They are actually being told BY OFFICIAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES, that they shouldn’t take AZ. Now often this is intended as a nuanced message (take others instead). But it would be only natural for them to have doubts. Especially when the mainstream message is that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit.
They're being told not to take AZ because Pfizer is better and available for their age group.
They're not being told not to get vaccinated.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Yes and it was bordering on antivaxx conspiracy nonsense.
They're being told "BY OFFICAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES" that they should take Pfizer, not simply that they shouldn't take AZ. To shout out that they're saying don't take AZ without saying "because we think you should take Pfizer instead" is lying by omission.
And the mainstream message is not simply that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit. The JCVI advice is completely crystal clear that it is far, far, far safer for the individual to be vaccinated by Pfizer than the risk of any adverse side effects.
The JCVI advice is that it's safer if you're 18 but not 17.........
That's not true.
The JCVI advice is that it's safer if you're 18 but they're still awaiting more data for if you're 17.
I think that's silly myself but they've categorically not said that its more dangerous to have the vaccine if you're 17 or that its not safer to take the vaccine, simply that they're awaiting more data.
Pretty late to the game, and there will probably be a new thread along in a minute:
Sainsburys - Walton Vale, Liverpool: No bottled water at all (My wife will cry, but I'll just point her to the tap) No ice cream or frozen desserts of any kind, though I'm more inclined to blame the hot weather for that (which unlike Southern England has continued today in Merseyside). Quite a few gaps in other areas, though you could always get what you need, though maybe not what you want.
Second time Sainsburys is out of bottled water. Sainsburys in Crosby had none last weekend, but walked over to the Tesco Express opposite and they had loads. Strange.
Pretty late to the game, and there will probably be a new thread along in a minute:
Sainsburys - Walton Vale, Liverpool: No bottled water at all (My wife will cry, but I'll just point her to the tap) No ice cream or frozen desserts of any kind, though I'm more inclined to blame the hot weather for that (which unlike Southern England has continued today in Merseyside). Quite a few gaps in other areas, though you could always get what you need, though maybe not what you want.
Second time Sainsburys is out of bottled water. Sainsburys in Crosby had none last weekend, but walked over to the Tesco Express opposite and they had loads. Strange.
It's still hot in Scouse Land? Not so in Wigan.
Not this morning. Dull and grey (and a bit cold) but much better in the afternoon, sun and heat returned though not as bad as its been a few day ago.
What an utter shit show and grift, Donald Trump would be proud.
Hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations earmarked for a Scottish independence referendum campaign may have been spent on refurbishing the SNP’s headquarters and on legal fees, it has emerged.
Police are investigating allegations of fraud surrounding more than £600,000 that was raised after an appeal by the party in 2017. The controversy threatens to damage Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, and her husband Peter Murrell, chief executive of the SNP.
Officers are expected to issue warrants shortly to obtain financial material from the SNP as they look into 19 complaints about the fighting fund that it had described as “ring-fenced”.
Police are expected to interview Murrell as well as the MSP Colin Beattie, who was reinstated as party treasurer last month. They are also expected to speak to several former party officials who recently resigned over not being shown full accounts by Murrell.
They include the MPs Joanna Cherry and Douglas Chapman, the party’s former treasurer, and three members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee.
Yesterday the party declined to comment on suggestions that some of the donations were spent on a refurbishment of its offices near the Scottish parliament, rumoured within the SNP to have cost £385,000.
Neither would it discuss allegations that the money was spent on legal costs for Murrell and his chief operating officer, Sue Ruddick, in relation to a parliamentary inquiry into the handling of harassment claims against Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader and first minister.
It has also been claimed that the party met legal costs incurred by the MP Alyn Smith after he said without evidence that the Brexit party was a “money-laundering front”. The SNP declined to be drawn.
Seems incredible they wouldn't have a footnote somewhere saying they could spend it on other things if they felt like it.
I really don't understand how one gets in a situation whree senior members could not or would not be shown full accounts either. What was the justification?
What an utter shit show and grift, Donald Trump would be proud.
Hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations earmarked for a Scottish independence referendum campaign may have been spent on refurbishing the SNP’s headquarters and on legal fees, it has emerged.
Police are investigating allegations of fraud surrounding more than £600,000 that was raised after an appeal by the party in 2017. The controversy threatens to damage Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, and her husband Peter Murrell, chief executive of the SNP.
Officers are expected to issue warrants shortly to obtain financial material from the SNP as they look into 19 complaints about the fighting fund that it had described as “ring-fenced”.
Police are expected to interview Murrell as well as the MSP Colin Beattie, who was reinstated as party treasurer last month. They are also expected to speak to several former party officials who recently resigned over not being shown full accounts by Murrell.
They include the MPs Joanna Cherry and Douglas Chapman, the party’s former treasurer, and three members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee.
Yesterday the party declined to comment on suggestions that some of the donations were spent on a refurbishment of its offices near the Scottish parliament, rumoured within the SNP to have cost £385,000.
Neither would it discuss allegations that the money was spent on legal costs for Murrell and his chief operating officer, Sue Ruddick, in relation to a parliamentary inquiry into the handling of harassment claims against Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader and first minister.
It has also been claimed that the party met legal costs incurred by the MP Alyn Smith after he said without evidence that the Brexit party was a “money-laundering front”. The SNP declined to be drawn.
Meanwhile, Labour analysis complaining 6 million holidays could be ruined if Spain and Greece added to amber plus list..
But they support getting rid of all amber categories and mutter about more hotel quarantine....
So which is it?
I was just about to ask that.
Its example #1042 where Labour screaming government shambles, reckless, too risky....then when push comes to shove they basically end up saying they would do the same.
I would have a lot more respect if said no airbridges don't work, sorry no non-essential foreign holidays, nightclubs are too risky, we would keep them closed, in fact covid spread is still high, we need to go to more restrictions, not less.
Also, regardless of what caused a financial problem, given the level of Sindy support, including plenty of people with deep pockets, were the SNP ever in dire straits financially I'd assume the report of such would be sufficient to get the coffers refilled. People dont like giving to parties but if the party were at actual risk I imagine people would do so.
Meanwhile, Labour analysis complaining 6 million holidays could be ruined if Spain and Greece added to amber plus list..
But they support getting rid of all amber categories and mutter about more hotel quarantine....
So which is it?
I was just about to ask that.
Its example #1042 where Labour screaming government shambles, reckless, too risky....then when push comes to shove they basically end up saying they would do the same.
'Broadly the same but more competently', one of the two available core opposition pitches.
Meanwhile, Labour analysis complaining 6 million holidays could be ruined if Spain and Greece added to amber plus list..
But they support getting rid of all amber categories and mutter about more hotel quarantine....
So which is it?
I was just about to ask that.
Its example #1042 where Labour screaming government shambles, reckless, too risky....then when push comes to shove they basically end up saying they would do the same.
'Broadly the same but more competently', one of the two available core opposition pitches.
The other being 'time for a change'.
There isn't much evidence that would be true though.....see their genius alternative to vaccine passports policy that lasted less than an hour when it touched reality of minimal discussion.
Meanwhile, Labour analysis complaining 6 million holidays could be ruined if Spain and Greece added to amber plus list..
But they support getting rid of all amber categories and mutter about more hotel quarantine....
So which is it?
I was just about to ask that.
Its example #1042 where Labour screaming government shambles, reckless, too risky....then when push comes to shove they basically end up saying they would do the same.
'Broadly the same but more competently', one of the two available core opposition pitches.
The other being 'time for a change'.
'Broadly the same but more competently' is hard to believe when Labour are acting in response to everything the government does with all the consistency and clarity of Vicky Pollard.
Meanwhile, Labour analysis complaining 6 million holidays could be ruined if Spain and Greece added to amber plus list..
But they support getting rid of all amber categories and mutter about more hotel quarantine....
So which is it?
I was just about to ask that.
Its example #1042 where Labour screaming government shambles, reckless, too risky....then when push comes to shove they basically end up saying they would do the same.
'Broadly the same but more competently', one of the two available core opposition pitches.
The other being 'time for a change'.
There isn't much evidence that would be true though.....see their genius alternative to vaccine passports policy that lasted less than an hour when it hit reality.
Restricting pitches to ones evidenced as true would really make things difficult for either side.
Meanwhile, Labour analysis complaining 6 million holidays could be ruined if Spain and Greece added to amber plus list..
But they support getting rid of all amber categories and mutter about more hotel quarantine....
So which is it?
I was just about to ask that.
Its example #1042 where Labour screaming government shambles, reckless, too risky....then when push comes to shove they basically end up saying they would do the same.
'Broadly the same but more competently', one of the two available core opposition pitches.
The other being 'time for a change'.
There isn't much evidence that would be true though.....see their genius alternative to vaccine passports policy that lasted less than an hour when it hit reality.
Restricting pitches to ones evidenced as true would really make things difficult for either side.
I don't think they have made a single sensible original suggestion during this whole pandemic. Even their "close the borders" isn't really a serious policy position, as we can see when push comes to shove they are moaning about people not being able to go on holidays.
As I have said previously Tony Blair has suggested more than the current Labour Party.
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.
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.
You seem completely oblivious of the fact that most people who get vaccinated DON'T do it because they're good at objectively considering evidence and at forming and tweaking a sound outlook on the basis of a reasonable appraisal of the probabilities of various possible outcomes of each of the actions they might take. Rather, they do it because authority figures and celebrities told them it was good for them, they trusted those authority figures and celebrities, and they don't want to be the odd man out. Intelligent thought didn't come into it much at all. Half of them would stick their head in the oven if somebody speaking in a posh accent told them to, or if they thought "everyone" else was doing it. Seriously, Philip, you should read some social psychology some time. Here's a short list of sources if you actually want to know more about this "gullibility" to which you refer:
* Solomon Asch * Stanley Milgram * the 2012 film "Compliance".
If you have a wider interest in stupidity rather than just in gullibility, I'd recommend work by Carlo Cipolla.
As for videos, you use the Hate Week term "antivaxx". Would that cover say the work of Andrew Wakefield? Seriously I don't know why it should, because while he may be many things he's not against vaccination in general. I doubt that many of those who have declined Covid-19 vaccinations are either. Sure, I can't prove it, but it's a feeling I get from talking to people.
You are caricaturing those who disagree with you.
You also use the word "science" in an extremely ideological way.
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.
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.
You seem completely oblivious of the fact that most people who get vaccinated DON'T do it because they're good at objectively considering evidence and at forming and tweaking a sound outlook on the basis of a reasonable appraisal of the probabilities of various possible outcomes of each of the actions they might take. Rather, they do it because authority figures and celebrities told them it was good for them, they trusted those authority figures and celebrities, and they don't want to be the odd man out. Intelligent thought didn't come into it much at all. Half of them would stick their head in the oven if somebody speaking in a posh accent told them to, or if they thought "everyone" else was doing it. Seriously, Philip, you should read some social psychology some time. Here's a short list of sources if you actually want to know more about this "gullibility" to which you refer:
* Solomon Asch * Stanley Milgram * the 2012 film "Compliance".
If you have a wider interest in stupidity rather than just in gullibility, I'd recommend work by Carlo Cipolla.
As for videos, you use the Hate Week term "antivaxx". Would that cover say the work of Andrew Wakefield? Seriously I don't know why it should, because while he may be many things he's not against vaccination in general. I doubt that many of those who have declined Covid-19 vaccinations are either. Sure, I can't prove it, but it's a feeling I get from talking to people.
You are caricaturing those who disagree with you.
You also use the word "science" in an extremely ideological way.
PMSL you're claiming antivaxx is "Hate Week" while implying Andrew Wakefield is a role model of good science?
Yes absolutely 100% the completely disgraced fraud Andrew Wakefield is an antivaxxer and anyone who treats him with anything other than contempt is ignorant at best, an antivaxxer fraud or Russian troll at worst.
Given his rap sheet and how woke footy is these days (I am obviously half joking on that bit), how is he still working in the game? Would you want your son or daughter coached by him?
What a performance with the medal presentation...all maskes up, then have to put your own medal around your own neck, then they rip off their masks and all hug on the platform...
Comments
Tory and old uni mate of one of the Cabinet is the one and only essential in the Person Spec.
Quite a simple heirarchy:
Complete freedom > Vaxports > Another lockdown
They're not being told not to get vaccinated.
This is progress because in the past you've signed up to the (imo) ridiculous notion that granting the vote would "set a precedent" and lo the SNP would continue to run at and win elections with yet another Ref as a headline commitment, creating perpetual uncertainty.
We've actually argued this exact point before on more than one occasion and that exact nonsense is what you've tended to come out with. Why you're saying something different when you're talking with somebody else, I don't know and don't care, because it's just terrific to see movement in a positive direction.
BBC News - Open water: Swimmers urged not to take chances
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57953480
Laura Pidcock
Night all
Sadly it is obscuring all the information posted on screen, such as time gaps and names of riders, which would allow you to make sense of the race in the absence of any commentary...
Carapaz has got this hasn't he?
At least I think that's what's happening.
I’ve always believed what I’m saying now. There WILL be a Sindyref2. But a generation will elapse before it is granted. = minimum 15 years (as in Quebec)
Means from 2029 on, approximately
Goodnight
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/s/hinch-hopes-do-it-all-over-again
Chair was the role Simon Jenkins had.
I was thinking Matthew Taylor for more DG.
What qualifications has Sathnam Sanghera have that are relevant?
The NT is one of very few organisations that can completely upend whole local areas when they get something wrong.
@dixiedean
I think party politics genuinely does not apply here.
The NT for example have not taken part in badger culling on their land.
NT are at 10% of the population as members.
I don't want anyone locked down, but if anyone has to be this winter then let it be the antivaxxers. I've done my bit, they can take the burden of their own choices.
They're being told "BY OFFICAL GOVT HEALTH AUTHORITIES" that they should take Pfizer, not simply that they shouldn't take AZ. To shout out that they're saying don't take AZ without saying "because we think you should take Pfizer instead" is lying by omission.
And the mainstream message is not simply that the vaccines are not primarily for their benefit. The JCVI advice is completely crystal clear that it is far, far, far safer for the individual to be vaccinated by Pfizer than the risk of any adverse side effects.
Sarcasm. Am grouchy. Due to Eurosport. Now the picture has frozen. The Olympics has been sold to the sporting equivalent of GB News.
Today’s 31,795 reported new cases figure compares with 54,674 last Saturday (41.8% down).
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1419070163551461384?s=21
Hence a lot of the furious tweeting about Javid and much taking of offence…
31,795
Last 7 days 286,863 -13,439 (-4.5%)
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations earmarked for a Scottish independence referendum campaign may have been spent on refurbishing the SNP’s headquarters and on legal fees, it has emerged.
Police are investigating allegations of fraud surrounding more than £600,000 that was raised after an appeal by the party in 2017. The controversy threatens to damage Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, and her husband Peter Murrell, chief executive of the SNP.
Officers are expected to issue warrants shortly to obtain financial material from the SNP as they look into 19 complaints about the fighting fund that it had described as “ring-fenced”.
Police are expected to interview Murrell as well as the MSP Colin Beattie, who was reinstated as party treasurer last month. They are also expected to speak to several former party officials who recently resigned over not being shown full accounts by Murrell.
They include the MPs Joanna Cherry and Douglas Chapman, the party’s former treasurer, and three members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee.
Yesterday the party declined to comment on suggestions that some of the donations were spent on a refurbishment of its offices near the Scottish parliament, rumoured within the SNP to have cost £385,000.
Neither would it discuss allegations that the money was spent on legal costs for Murrell and his chief operating officer, Sue Ruddick, in relation to a parliamentary inquiry into the handling of harassment claims against Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader and first minister.
It has also been claimed that the party met legal costs incurred by the MP Alyn Smith after he said without evidence that the Brexit party was a “money-laundering front”. The SNP declined to be drawn.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-referendum-donations-spent-on-office-renovations-q0w9nbfpg
At the very best it was crass wording. It implied cowardice.
Cowardice by simply assessing risk differently to a multi-millionaire member of the Cabinet.
Sainsburys - Walton Vale, Liverpool:
No bottled water at all (My wife will cry, but I'll just point her to the tap)
No ice cream or frozen desserts of any kind, though I'm more inclined to blame the hot weather for that (which unlike Southern England has continued today in Merseyside).
Quite a few gaps in other areas, though you could always get what you need, though maybe not what you want.
Second time Sainsburys is out of bottled water. Sainsburys in Crosby had none last weekend, but walked over to the Tesco Express opposite and they had loads.
Strange.
The JCVI advice is that it's safer if you're 18 but they're still awaiting more data for if you're 17.
I think that's silly myself but they've categorically not said that its more dangerous to have the vaccine if you're 17 or that its not safer to take the vaccine, simply that they're awaiting more data.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57958178
I really don't understand how one gets in a situation whree senior members could not or would not be shown full accounts either. What was the justification?
But they support getting rid of all amber categories and mutter about more hotel quarantine....
So which is it?
It would would be .. wonderful in its irony.
Is the dog food salesman on this?
I would have a lot more respect if said no airbridges don't work, sorry no non-essential foreign holidays, nightclubs are too risky, we would keep them closed, in fact covid spread is still high, we need to go to more restrictions, not less.
The other being 'time for a change'.
As I have said previously Tony Blair has suggested more than the current Labour Party.
* Solomon Asch
* Stanley Milgram
* the 2012 film "Compliance".
If you have a wider interest in stupidity rather than just in gullibility, I'd recommend work by Carlo Cipolla.
As for videos, you use the Hate Week term "antivaxx". Would that cover say the work of Andrew Wakefield? Seriously I don't know why it should, because while he may be many things he's not against vaccination in general. I doubt that many of those who have declined Covid-19 vaccinations are either. Sure, I can't prove it, but it's a feeling I get from talking to people.
You are caricaturing those who disagree with you.
You also use the word "science" in an extremely ideological way.
Yes absolutely 100% the completely disgraced fraud Andrew Wakefield is an antivaxxer and anyone who treats him with anything other than contempt is ignorant at best, an antivaxxer fraud or Russian troll at worst.
https://twitter.com/TheSunFootball/status/1419036279212318722?s=20
Given his rap sheet and how woke footy is these days (I am obviously half joking on that bit), how is he still working in the game? Would you want your son or daughter coached by him?
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1418726936470294532
- New cases: 35,635
- Average: 50,581 (+1,814)
- In hospital: 33,645 (+1,191)
- In ICU: 8,410 (+284)
- New deaths: 154
More data: https://t.co/YDZSbYO7l7
BBC News - Sajid Javid criticised for 'cower' Covid remark
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57958538
86 deaths reported.