Howdy, Stranger!

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

Opinium: Apart from vaccines more think LAB would be doing better – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • Have Twitter got it right that the "great deal but doesn't come into effect for 15 years" Australia deal is in fact not yet agreed and negotiations are to be reopened?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Sitrep GoriLlas Order

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS

    As I said, I downloaded the app half an hour ago. Took 1 minute to set it up with Apple Pay

    I just, as a test, ordered 1 bottle of red wine. A decent Trivento Reserve Malbec. £8 at Sainsbury's. £8 + £.180 delivery from Gorillas

    This is 10pm on a Sunday

    I ordered it, as in clicking my phone, at 9.54pm. The app said "it will be there in 9 minutes". And it was. I have just collected it at the door. THE PROCESS FROM ORDER TO DELIVERY TOOK 9 MINUTES

    That's amazing. You can easily wait longer than that at a bar.
    I am surrounded by decent or very good shops that open late. Within 5-7 minutes walk of me there is a Co-op, a Tesco Extra, a Whole Foods, M&S Foods, and an Aldi. Within 10 minutes walk is a big Sainsburys and a very big Morrisons

    Even on a Sunday the Co=op and Whole Foods are open until 9 or 11pm. And there are dodgy tiny stores which sell basic stuff 24/7/356, on my streetcorners

    Yet none of them can match the convenience of this. I can order a rather decent bottle of red at 10pm on Sunday and it is here in 9 minutes? Even if Tesco Extra is open this late on Sunday AND it has that nice red it would take me 25 minutes to complete the process of walking down, finding it, buying it, coming back

    It is quite revolutionary IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE
    If you pay Deliveroo a subscription of £13 a month, you can have unlimited free deliveries with minimum order each time of £10.
    How can they afford to pay the people who deliver the goods?
    It's subsidised by VC cash.

    It is not remotely sustainable.
    Believe (based on grapevine & media reports) that many delivery-service drivers depend on tips, esp. as delivery companies have tendency to nickel & dime them (don't know UK equivalent!) on the apps, by deductions & other dodges?

    So I hear.
    Ppt p pop p pop
    Tipping isn't much of a thing for delivery in the UK
    The issue is the “service charge”

    Food price - ok
    Delivery charge - ok
    Service charge - if that’s not the tip then why isn’t it part of the delivery charge?
    Tip - I’ve just paid a service charge?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    Apart from what's online? No.

    Aren't we lucky Boris has signed us up for war with China in order to sell billions of dollars' worth of American submarines to Australia? Our cut being schadenfreude at annoying the French but no actual cash in return for facing this exciting new threat. And we thought it was only Russian hypersonic missiles we needed to worry about.
    We need to worry about China despite AUKIS not because of AUKUS
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740

    Have Twitter got it right that the "great deal but doesn't come into effect for 15 years" Australia deal is in fact not yet agreed and negotiations are to be reopened?

    Even at the time, the small print was that all that had been agreed was cancellation of the French order in favour of a scoping exercise to see if America could come up with something more suitable.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    edited October 18
    eek said:

    One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.

    Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.

    Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.

    The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.

    If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.

    Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.

    The EU however, regards the end result of the American scheme (unaffordable subsidies, tax incentives and grants) as things that should be limited rather than used in a race to the bottom when it's known most subsidy seeking firms will walk away the moment the subsidy has been used and on to the next foolish state.
    Yes, there’s a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, where states make themselves attractive without picking winners. Ireland is probably the best known example, and the EU have been trying to shut that one down for years.

    A lot of the American deals turn out to be poor value for the taxpayer, mostly because the companies involved have more and better lawyers than the cities and states, The important stats, such as numbers of new jobs created and average salaries paid, never seem to be met - but don’t seem to attract an enforceable penalty either. The politicians bend over backwards to sign these deals, but also don’t seem to be held to account for them at the ballot box.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Sitrep GoriLlas Order

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS

    As I said, I downloaded the app half an hour ago. Took 1 minute to set it up with Apple Pay

    I just, as a test, ordered 1 bottle of red wine. A decent Trivento Reserve Malbec. £8 at Sainsbury's. £8 + £.180 delivery from Gorillas

    This is 10pm on a Sunday

    I ordered it, as in clicking my phone, at 9.54pm. The app said "it will be there in 9 minutes". And it was. I have just collected it at the door. THE PROCESS FROM ORDER TO DELIVERY TOOK 9 MINUTES

    That's amazing. You can easily wait longer than that at a bar.
    I am surrounded by decent or very good shops that open late. Within 5-7 minutes walk of me there is a Co-op, a Tesco Extra, a Whole Foods, M&S Foods, and an Aldi. Within 10 minutes walk is a big Sainsburys and a very big Morrisons

    Even on a Sunday the Co=op and Whole Foods are open until 9 or 11pm. And there are dodgy tiny stores which sell basic stuff 24/7/356, on my streetcorners

    Yet none of them can match the convenience of this. I can order a rather decent bottle of red at 10pm on Sunday and it is here in 9 minutes? Even if Tesco Extra is open this late on Sunday AND it has that nice red it would take me 25 minutes to complete the process of walking down, finding it, buying it, coming back

    It is quite revolutionary IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE
    If you pay Deliveroo a subscription of £13 a month, you can have unlimited free deliveries with minimum order each time of £10.
    How can they afford to pay the people who deliver the goods?
    It's subsidised by VC cash.

    It is not remotely sustainable.
    Believe (based on grapevine & media reports) that many delivery-service drivers depend on tips, esp. as delivery companies have tendency to nickel & dime them (don't know UK equivalent!) on the apps, by deductions & other dodges?

    So I hear.
    Ppt p pop p pop
    Tipping isn't much of a thing for delivery in the UK
    The issue is the “service charge”

    Food price - ok
    Delivery charge - ok
    Service charge - if that’s not the tip then why isn’t it part of the delivery charge?
    Tip - I’ve just paid a service charge?
    Deliveroo has separate tips for rider and restaurant. I've no idea if the latter gets anywhere near the staff. (Along with delivery charge, service charge, subscription which gives free delivery but only if over £10.) And the food is considerably marked up as per my earlier post.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
  • eekeek Posts: 15,822
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.

    Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.

    Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.

    The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.

    If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.

    Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.

    The EU however, regards the end result of the American scheme (unaffordable subsidies, tax incentives and grants) as things that should be limited rather than used in a race to the bottom when it's known most subsidy seeking firms will walk away the moment the subsidy has been used and on to the next foolish state.
    Yes, there’s a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, where states make themselves attractive without picking winners. Ireland is probably the best known example, and the EU have been trying to shut that one down for years.

    A lot of the American deals turn out to be poor value for the taxpayer, mostly because the companies involved have more and better lawyers than the cities and states, The important stats, such as numbers of new jobs created and average salaries paid, never seem to be met - but don’t seem to attract an enforceable penalty either. The politicians bend over backwards to sign these deals, but also don’t seem to be held to account for them at the ballot box.
    Voters see the announcements but because the actual detail is opaque, they rarely see that the end result doesn't match what was promised. So votes are won by winning the "factory" with few caring about the actuality.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Sandpit, cheers for posting that link.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    One thing before more details emerged was an MP saying mental health has got worse in recent years. I discussed that point with my other half and we agreed that
    i. No it probably has not
    ii. It can be a bit of a go to when these sorts of things happen.
    But what happened is that a lot of people who would previously have been in secure accommodation for their safety and ours are now receiving the completely misnamed "care in the community" which all too often means that they are isolated, neglected and not taking their meds when they should. So the risk to those with mental health issues, both for themselves and for those about them, has increased even if the incidence of actual illness hasn't.
    Enoch was wrong

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6451027/PETER-HITCHENS-suffering-Enochs-craziest-cruellest-idea.html
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    Interesting. The British Museum are to have an exhibition next year featuring Stonehenge and "the vast interconnected world that existed around the ancient monument, spanning Britain, Ireland and mainland Europe."
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.

    Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.

    Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.

    The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.

    If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.

    Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.

    The EU however, regards the end result of the American scheme (unaffordable subsidies, tax incentives and grants) as things that should be limited rather than used in a race to the bottom when it's known most subsidy seeking firms will walk away the moment the subsidy has been used and on to the next foolish state.
    Yes, there’s a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, where states make themselves attractive without picking winners. Ireland is probably the best known example, and the EU have been trying to shut that one down for years.

    A lot of the American deals turn out to be poor value for the taxpayer, mostly because the companies involved have more and better lawyers than the cities and states, The important stats, such as numbers of new jobs created and average salaries paid, never seem to be met - but don’t seem to attract an enforceable penalty either. The politicians bend over backwards to sign these deals, but also don’t seem to be held to account for them at the ballot box.
    Voters see the announcements but because the actual detail is opaque, they rarely see that the end result doesn't match what was promised. So votes are won by winning the "factory" with few caring about the actuality.
    Just like 'levelling up"?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Charles said:

    Apparently the suspect went on a deradicalisation course.

    image

    Really work then dont they?
    They are reasonably good but not 100%
    I think that complacent - its the easiest solution to anything bad - do a course or educate .At this level of seriousness they really need to prove they work - i have not seen any evidence
    There is proof if you can be bothered to go and look.

    The problem is the Daily Mail reports the 1 failure and ignores the 99 successes

    You can always improve and may be some hard cases need different programmes but to dismiss the entire programme as you did is a facile and unhelpful response
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    All in the news today:

    *) A 76-year old man has been arrested over death threat sent to Labour MP Chris Bryant.
    *) Justice Secretary Dominic Rabb has had two or three threats to live and limb over the last couple of years.
    *) Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has told BBC Breakfast that he has been subject to death threats due to his job.

    etc, etc.

    The 'scum' comment feeds into this negativity: it's okay to hate 'our' opponents because they're scum. Lesser beings. The comments feed the sort of sh*t you see above. Death threats can be attacks even if they're never carried through: they cause fear and anxiety.

    She was bang out of order, and the above stories show where her sort of hatred leads.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Well, the US certainly has a lot more capability than they would ever admit to, but the noises do sound rather concerned.

    Maybe they’re trying to politely tell China that if they try that again, the US will be watching for it and prepared to react.

    That said, the suggestion is that this rocket could do several orbits before heading for the target with only a few minutes’ notice. I imagine that’s not easy to defend against, even with all systems armed and on alert.

    Cold War II does seem a step closer with this revelation.
    My guess is this is a deliberate leak to discourage the US from intervening in Taiwan
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,827
    On the China ultra sonic missile and UAPs. Pretty clear the US machine has been totally complacent, believing if they throw enough money at defence contractors they will retain supreme air and technology dominance. Even while they’ve had a couple of decades now of their pilots and radar operators telling them that they have neither.

    I think this Chinese test is quite a significant moment and not just for the New Cold War, Taiwan and geopolitics. Because there’s no way the checks and balances of the US system can see that test coming after the UAP Taskforce report that landed on their desks in the summer and not demand far better answers than they’ve been getting. Even if it’s on a classified basis, the DoD is going to have to be a lot more transparent about identifying which anomalous tech in their air is Chinese, and which they cannot explain.

    This said, the Cold War against the USSR is often said to have been the major reason why a brief period of relative transparency in the US about “flying saucers” and “foo fighters” gave way to the culture of ridicule and denial in the 60-70 years thereafter. So let’s see.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Sitrep GoriLlas Order

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS

    As I said, I downloaded the app half an hour ago. Took 1 minute to set it up with Apple Pay

    I just, as a test, ordered 1 bottle of red wine. A decent Trivento Reserve Malbec. £8 at Sainsbury's. £8 + £.180 delivery from Gorillas

    This is 10pm on a Sunday

    I ordered it, as in clicking my phone, at 9.54pm. The app said "it will be there in 9 minutes". And it was. I have just collected it at the door. THE PROCESS FROM ORDER TO DELIVERY TOOK 9 MINUTES

    That's amazing. You can easily wait longer than that at a bar.
    I am surrounded by decent or very good shops that open late. Within 5-7 minutes walk of me there is a Co-op, a Tesco Extra, a Whole Foods, M&S Foods, and an Aldi. Within 10 minutes walk is a big Sainsburys and a very big Morrisons

    Even on a Sunday the Co=op and Whole Foods are open until 9 or 11pm. And there are dodgy tiny stores which sell basic stuff 24/7/356, on my streetcorners

    Yet none of them can match the convenience of this. I can order a rather decent bottle of red at 10pm on Sunday and it is here in 9 minutes? Even if Tesco Extra is open this late on Sunday AND it has that nice red it would take me 25 minutes to complete the process of walking down, finding it, buying it, coming back

    It is quite revolutionary IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE
    If you pay Deliveroo a subscription of £13 a month, you can have unlimited free deliveries with minimum order each time of £10.
    How can they afford to pay the people who deliver the goods?
    It's subsidised by VC cash.

    It is not remotely sustainable.
    Believe (based on grapevine & media reports) that many delivery-service drivers depend on tips, esp. as delivery companies have tendency to nickel & dime them (don't know UK equivalent!) on the apps, by deductions & other dodges?

    So I hear.
    Ppt p pop p pop
    Tipping isn't much of a thing for delivery in the UK
    The issue is the “service charge”

    Food price - ok
    Delivery charge - ok
    Service charge - if that’s not the tip then why isn’t it part of the delivery charge?
    Tip - I’ve just paid a service charge?
    Uber Eats started up in my area during lockdown, and offered some great introductory deals. So on a couple of occasions I treated myself to a restaurant meal, delivered.

    Not only is there a delivery and a service charge but the menu is more expensive than ordering direct from the restaurant.

    Not something I'm going to do again. In any case, if I'm paying restaurant prices I like to be actually sat in a restaurant, being waited on, etc
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    All in the news today:

    *) A 76-year old man has been arrested over death threat sent to Labour MP Chris Bryant.
    *) Justice Secretary Dominic Rabb has had two or three threats to live and limb over the last couple of years.
    *) Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has told BBC Breakfast that he has been subject to death threats due to his job.

    etc, etc.

    The 'scum' comment feeds into this negativity: it's okay to hate 'our' opponents because they're scum. Lesser beings. The comments feed the sort of sh*t you see above. Death threats can be attacks even if they're never carried through: they cause fear and anxiety.

    She was bang out of order, and the above stories show where her sort of hatred leads.
    Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?

    Perhaps it is time for considering really draconian custodial sentences with a massive social media campaign warning people what they will face if they do it?

    This problem is now completely out of hand thanks to the Internet and we need action imho.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Have Twitter got it right that the "great deal but doesn't come into effect for 15 years" Australia deal is in fact not yet agreed and negotiations are to be reopened?

    It was always a heads of terms I think? Or May be more but there were still schedules to be completed
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740

    One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.

    Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.

    Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.

    The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.

    If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.

    Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.

    It's argued that H. sapiens ability to work together in reasonably large groups was a significant part of the reason for it's success vis-a-vis the Neanderthals, Denisovians etc.
    Absolutely and 67 million people is a reasonably large group to be working with. Its possibly too large still.
    Careful; you'll wake Malc!

    You were commenting elsewhere that in the US individual States seemed to compete for investment; I've always envisaged a similar sort of set up in North and Western Europe, which has more of a common heritage (except for the fact that Dad or Grandad upped sticks to cross the Atlantic) than the USA.
    That's not really the EU is it. Germany, northern France, Benelux, Scandinavia, Lower Saxony and the Rhineland, probably Switzerland. Apart from France, we would probably all get on quite well.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Sitrep GoriLlas Order

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS

    As I said, I downloaded the app half an hour ago. Took 1 minute to set it up with Apple Pay

    I just, as a test, ordered 1 bottle of red wine. A decent Trivento Reserve Malbec. £8 at Sainsbury's. £8 + £.180 delivery from Gorillas

    This is 10pm on a Sunday

    I ordered it, as in clicking my phone, at 9.54pm. The app said "it will be there in 9 minutes". And it was. I have just collected it at the door. THE PROCESS FROM ORDER TO DELIVERY TOOK 9 MINUTES

    That's amazing. You can easily wait longer than that at a bar.
    I am surrounded by decent or very good shops that open late. Within 5-7 minutes walk of me there is a Co-op, a Tesco Extra, a Whole Foods, M&S Foods, and an Aldi. Within 10 minutes walk is a big Sainsburys and a very big Morrisons

    Even on a Sunday the Co=op and Whole Foods are open until 9 or 11pm. And there are dodgy tiny stores which sell basic stuff 24/7/356, on my streetcorners

    Yet none of them can match the convenience of this. I can order a rather decent bottle of red at 10pm on Sunday and it is here in 9 minutes? Even if Tesco Extra is open this late on Sunday AND it has that nice red it would take me 25 minutes to complete the process of walking down, finding it, buying it, coming back

    It is quite revolutionary IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE
    If you pay Deliveroo a subscription of £13 a month, you can have unlimited free deliveries with minimum order each time of £10.
    How can they afford to pay the people who deliver the goods?
    It's subsidised by VC cash.

    It is not remotely sustainable.
    Believe (based on grapevine & media reports) that many delivery-service drivers depend on tips, esp. as delivery companies have tendency to nickel & dime them (don't know UK equivalent!) on the apps, by deductions & other dodges?

    So I hear.
    Ppt p pop p pop
    Tipping isn't much of a thing for delivery in the UK
    The issue is the “service charge”

    Food price - ok
    Delivery charge - ok
    Service charge - if that’s not the tip then why isn’t it part of the delivery charge?
    Tip - I’ve just paid a service charge?
    Uber Eats started up in my area during lockdown, and offered some great introductory deals. So on a couple of occasions I treated myself to a restaurant meal, delivered.

    Not only is there a delivery and a service charge but the menu is more expensive than ordering direct from the restaurant.

    Not something I'm going to do again. In any case, if I'm paying restaurant prices I like to be actually sat in a restaurant, being waited on, etc
    IIRC the restaurant sets the food price. They have a love/hate relationship with the delivery services though, especially when they have a physical restaurant, with people sitting at tables and limited capacity for the kitchen to churn out delivery orders at a discount all night - which they do after the delivery service takes a cut, hence the inflated food price.

    The delivery service is really hoping you don’t work out the actual cost though, that they’re charging you a huge premium yet still they can’t come close to being profitable.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    All in the news today:

    *) A 76-year old man has been arrested over death threat sent to Labour MP Chris Bryant.
    *) Justice Secretary Dominic Rabb has had two or three threats to live and limb over the last couple of years.
    *) Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has told BBC Breakfast that he has been subject to death threats due to his job.

    etc, etc.

    The 'scum' comment feeds into this negativity: it's okay to hate 'our' opponents because they're scum. Lesser beings. The comments feed the sort of sh*t you see above. Death threats can be attacks even if they're never carried through: they cause fear and anxiety.

    She was bang out of order, and the above stories show where her sort of hatred leads.
    Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?

    Perhaps it is time for considering really draconian custodial sentences with a massive social media campaign warning people what they will face if they do it?

    This problem is now completely out of hand thanks to the Internet and we need action imho.
    Why MPs and not doctors' receptionists or footballers?
  • MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    All in the news today:

    *) A 76-year old man has been arrested over death threat sent to Labour MP Chris Bryant.
    *) Justice Secretary Dominic Rabb has had two or three threats to live and limb over the last couple of years.
    *) Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has told BBC Breakfast that he has been subject to death threats due to his job.

    etc, etc.

    The 'scum' comment feeds into this negativity: it's okay to hate 'our' opponents because they're scum. Lesser beings. The comments feed the sort of sh*t you see above. Death threats can be attacks even if they're never carried through: they cause fear and anxiety.

    She was bang out of order, and the above stories show where her sort of hatred leads.
    Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?

    Perhaps it is time for considering really draconian custodial sentences with a massive social media campaign warning people what they will face if they do it?

    This problem is now completely out of hand thanks to the Internet and we need action imho.
    "Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?"

    I assume it would be the same as death threats to you or I.

    Which leads to a question: should death threats to MPs or other civil servants be treated more harshly than if they were directed to an ordinary member of the public? My instinct says no, but I can see how it could be an aggravating factor.

    A quick Google shows several cases. In one, where a letter was sent, it was: "sending a letter conveying a threatening message " (one year jail) In another, via Facebook: "“sending via electronic communications a message that was grossly offensive” " (four months jail)

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/death-threat-anna-soubry-mp-abuse-alden-bryce-barlow-a9205316.html
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/12/man-jailed-over-facebook-threat-to-kill-eastbourne-mp-caroline-ansell
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
    TBF if you are aiming at Washington but hit New York… 🤷‍♂️
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Sitrep GoriLlas Order

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS

    As I said, I downloaded the app half an hour ago. Took 1 minute to set it up with Apple Pay

    I just, as a test, ordered 1 bottle of red wine. A decent Trivento Reserve Malbec. £8 at Sainsbury's. £8 + £.180 delivery from Gorillas

    This is 10pm on a Sunday

    I ordered it, as in clicking my phone, at 9.54pm. The app said "it will be there in 9 minutes". And it was. I have just collected it at the door. THE PROCESS FROM ORDER TO DELIVERY TOOK 9 MINUTES

    That's amazing. You can easily wait longer than that at a bar.
    I am surrounded by decent or very good shops that open late. Within 5-7 minutes walk of me there is a Co-op, a Tesco Extra, a Whole Foods, M&S Foods, and an Aldi. Within 10 minutes walk is a big Sainsburys and a very big Morrisons

    Even on a Sunday the Co=op and Whole Foods are open until 9 or 11pm. And there are dodgy tiny stores which sell basic stuff 24/7/356, on my streetcorners

    Yet none of them can match the convenience of this. I can order a rather decent bottle of red at 10pm on Sunday and it is here in 9 minutes? Even if Tesco Extra is open this late on Sunday AND it has that nice red it would take me 25 minutes to complete the process of walking down, finding it, buying it, coming back

    It is quite revolutionary IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE
    If you pay Deliveroo a subscription of £13 a month, you can have unlimited free deliveries with minimum order each time of £10.
    How can they afford to pay the people who deliver the goods?
    It's subsidised by VC cash.

    It is not remotely sustainable.
    Believe (based on grapevine & media reports) that many delivery-service drivers depend on tips, esp. as delivery companies have tendency to nickel & dime them (don't know UK equivalent!) on the apps, by deductions & other dodges?

    So I hear.
    Ppt p pop p pop
    Tipping isn't much of a thing for delivery in the UK
    The issue is the “service charge”

    Food price - ok
    Delivery charge - ok
    Service charge - if that’s not the tip then why isn’t it part of the delivery charge?
    Tip - I’ve just paid a service charge?
    Uber Eats started up in my area during lockdown, and offered some great introductory deals. So on a couple of occasions I treated myself to a restaurant meal, delivered.

    Not only is there a delivery and a service charge but the menu is more expensive than ordering direct from the restaurant.

    Not something I'm going to do again. In any case, if I'm paying restaurant prices I like to be actually sat in a restaurant, being waited on, etc
    IIRC the restaurant sets the food price. They have a love/hate relationship with the delivery services though, especially when they have a physical restaurant, with people sitting at tables and limited capacity for the kitchen to churn out delivery orders at a discount all night - which they do after the delivery service takes a cut, hence the inflated food price.

    The delivery service is really hoping you don’t work out the actual cost though, that they’re charging you a huge premium yet still they can’t come close to being profitable.
    Certainly the delivery driver for the Nepali restaurant was keen to give me the normal menu and encourage me to order direct next time. In any case, I had only ordered through Uber because they gave me 50% off.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694
    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
    TBF if you are aiming at Washington but hit New York… 🤷‍♂️
    Well, yes, not a bad outcome for the Chinese...

    Might be more of an issue if they are targeting launching stations in Montana or Wyoming though...
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,475

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    The genie is out of the bottle I’m afraid. The opposition and the govt have shared ownership of this. But it won’t change. I’m afraid it will get much worse. What changed since Jo Cox.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    All in the news today:

    *) A 76-year old man has been arrested over death threat sent to Labour MP Chris Bryant.
    *) Justice Secretary Dominic Rabb has had two or three threats to live and limb over the last couple of years.
    *) Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has told BBC Breakfast that he has been subject to death threats due to his job.

    etc, etc.

    The 'scum' comment feeds into this negativity: it's okay to hate 'our' opponents because they're scum. Lesser beings. The comments feed the sort of sh*t you see above. Death threats can be attacks even if they're never carried through: they cause fear and anxiety.

    She was bang out of order, and the above stories show where her sort of hatred leads.
    Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?

    Perhaps it is time for considering really draconian custodial sentences with a massive social media campaign warning people what they will face if they do it?

    This problem is now completely out of hand thanks to the Internet and we need action imho.
    In the US, the sentence is up to 5 years for death threats against the President.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/woman-pleads-guilty-threatening-vice-president-harris-80016525

    Many more than have been prosecuted, have had a home visit from a couple of men in black, which probably does the trick too.

    Legislation forcing lifetime bans from the various social media companies, specifically for threats against named individuals that result in criminal conviction, does not seem particularly unconstitutional in the UK.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    I am up for that. And if you look at Sir David Amess, you had a clear example of someone who didn't let himself be defined by political party point-scoring. He was anti-abortion but he was pro-refugees. He was anti-gay marriage but opposed cuts to overseas aid.

    Social media has a lot to blame for this and the clue is in the name, it's media. We regulate media for obvious reasons. We need to do the same for social media.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Sitrep GoriLlas Order

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS

    As I said, I downloaded the app half an hour ago. Took 1 minute to set it up with Apple Pay

    I just, as a test, ordered 1 bottle of red wine. A decent Trivento Reserve Malbec. £8 at Sainsbury's. £8 + £.180 delivery from Gorillas

    This is 10pm on a Sunday

    I ordered it, as in clicking my phone, at 9.54pm. The app said "it will be there in 9 minutes". And it was. I have just collected it at the door. THE PROCESS FROM ORDER TO DELIVERY TOOK 9 MINUTES

    That's amazing. You can easily wait longer than that at a bar.
    I am surrounded by decent or very good shops that open late. Within 5-7 minutes walk of me there is a Co-op, a Tesco Extra, a Whole Foods, M&S Foods, and an Aldi. Within 10 minutes walk is a big Sainsburys and a very big Morrisons

    Even on a Sunday the Co=op and Whole Foods are open until 9 or 11pm. And there are dodgy tiny stores which sell basic stuff 24/7/356, on my streetcorners

    Yet none of them can match the convenience of this. I can order a rather decent bottle of red at 10pm on Sunday and it is here in 9 minutes? Even if Tesco Extra is open this late on Sunday AND it has that nice red it would take me 25 minutes to complete the process of walking down, finding it, buying it, coming back

    It is quite revolutionary IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE
    If you pay Deliveroo a subscription of £13 a month, you can have unlimited free deliveries with minimum order each time of £10.
    How can they afford to pay the people who deliver the goods?
    It's subsidised by VC cash.

    It is not remotely sustainable.
    Believe (based on grapevine & media reports) that many delivery-service drivers depend on tips, esp. as delivery companies have tendency to nickel & dime them (don't know UK equivalent!) on the apps, by deductions & other dodges?

    So I hear.
    Ppt p pop p pop
    Tipping isn't much of a thing for delivery in the UK
    The issue is the “service charge”

    Food price - ok
    Delivery charge - ok
    Service charge - if that’s not the tip then why isn’t it part of the delivery charge?
    Tip - I’ve just paid a service charge?
    Uber Eats started up in my area during lockdown, and offered some great introductory deals. So on a couple of occasions I treated myself to a restaurant meal, delivered.

    Not only is there a delivery and a service charge but the menu is more expensive than ordering direct from the restaurant.

    Not something I'm going to do again. In any case, if I'm paying restaurant prices I like to be actually sat in a restaurant, being waited on, etc
    IIRC the restaurant sets the food price. They have a love/hate relationship with the delivery services though, especially when they have a physical restaurant, with people sitting at tables and limited capacity for the kitchen to churn out delivery orders at a discount all night - which they do after the delivery service takes a cut, hence the inflated food price.

    The delivery service is really hoping you don’t work out the actual cost though, that they’re charging you a huge premium yet still they can’t come close to being profitable.
    The restaurant sets the food price but Uber charges the restaurant a percentage of the food bill. So the restaurants put up their prices for Deliveroo deliveries so that they are not out of pocket.

    Basically all these food delivery services are very expensive middle-men because last mile delivery is a very expensive business and there is no magic wand that makes it cheap.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,638
    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
    “I aim at the stars (but sometimes I hit London” - Dr W von Braun (allegedly)
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    All in the news today:

    *) A 76-year old man has been arrested over death threat sent to Labour MP Chris Bryant.
    *) Justice Secretary Dominic Rabb has had two or three threats to live and limb over the last couple of years.
    *) Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has told BBC Breakfast that he has been subject to death threats due to his job.

    etc, etc.

    The 'scum' comment feeds into this negativity: it's okay to hate 'our' opponents because they're scum. Lesser beings. The comments feed the sort of sh*t you see above. Death threats can be attacks even if they're never carried through: they cause fear and anxiety.

    She was bang out of order, and the above stories show where her sort of hatred leads.
    Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?

    Perhaps it is time for considering really draconian custodial sentences with a massive social media campaign warning people what they will face if they do it?

    This problem is now completely out of hand thanks to the Internet and we need action imho.
    "Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?"

    I assume it would be the same as death threats to you or I.

    Which leads to a question: should death threats to MPs or other civil servants be treated more harshly than if they were directed to an ordinary member of the public? My instinct says no, but I can see how it could be an aggravating factor.

    A quick Google shows several cases. In one, where a letter was sent, it was: "sending a letter conveying a threatening message " (one year jail) In another, via Facebook: "“sending via electronic communications a message that was grossly offensive” " (four months jail)

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/death-threat-anna-soubry-mp-abuse-alden-bryce-barlow-a9205316.html
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/12/man-jailed-over-facebook-threat-to-kill-eastbourne-mp-caroline-ansell
    It would definitely fall under the statutory definition of terrorism if the threat was for a political reason rather than a personal. Terrorism Act 2000:

    (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

    (a) the action falls within subsection (2),
    (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
    (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
    (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

    (a) involves serious violence against a person,
    (b) involves serious damage to property,
    (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
    (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
    (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

    There doesn't even seem to be a get out clause of justification.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,638
    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
    TBF if you are aiming at Washington but hit New York… 🤷‍♂️
    Well, yes, not a bad outcome for the Chinese...

    Might be more of an issue if they are targeting launching stations in Montana or Wyoming though...
    I think all the Minutemen silos there have been turned into tourist attraction and prepper bunkers.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210
    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
    Another factor in this is the Boeing X37B. This is a robotic spacecraft/flight vehicle operated by the US military, and can spend multiple years in orbit - the latest has been up since May last year. It is capable of significant orbital plane changes (the direction it orbits), making it hard to track. It is used for experiments at the moment, but the system could very easily become an offensive system. The only thing stopping it is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits nukes in space.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    edited October 18

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    All in the news today:

    *) A 76-year old man has been arrested over death threat sent to Labour MP Chris Bryant.
    *) Justice Secretary Dominic Rabb has had two or three threats to live and limb over the last couple of years.
    *) Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has told BBC Breakfast that he has been subject to death threats due to his job.

    etc, etc.

    The 'scum' comment feeds into this negativity: it's okay to hate 'our' opponents because they're scum. Lesser beings. The comments feed the sort of sh*t you see above. Death threats can be attacks even if they're never carried through: they cause fear and anxiety.

    She was bang out of order, and the above stories show where her sort of hatred leads.
    Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?

    Perhaps it is time for considering really draconian custodial sentences with a massive social media campaign warning people what they will face if they do it?

    This problem is now completely out of hand thanks to the Internet and we need action imho.
    "Out of interest anyone know what the penalty is for death threats to MPs?"

    I assume it would be the same as death threats to you or I.

    Which leads to a question: should death threats to MPs or other civil servants be treated more harshly than if they were directed to an ordinary member of the public? My instinct says no, but I can see how it could be an aggravating factor.

    A quick Google shows several cases. In one, where a letter was sent, it was: "sending a letter conveying a threatening message " (one year jail) In another, via Facebook: "“sending via electronic communications a message that was grossly offensive” " (four months jail)

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/death-threat-anna-soubry-mp-abuse-alden-bryce-barlow-a9205316.html
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/12/man-jailed-over-facebook-threat-to-kill-eastbourne-mp-caroline-ansell
    Really? 4 months for being grossly offensive? The most offensive line I can easily think of is "Your mother s---s c-ck in hell." That got past the censors in The Exorcist, and doesn't seem worth prison time. I am now slightly worried for @malcolmg.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,197
    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Well, the US certainly has a lot more capability than they would ever admit to, but the noises do sound rather concerned.

    Maybe they’re trying to politely tell China that if they try that again, the US will be watching for it and prepared to react.

    That said, the suggestion is that this rocket could do several orbits before heading for the target with only a few minutes’ notice. I imagine that’s not easy to defend against, even with all systems armed and on alert.

    Cold War II does seem a step closer with this revelation.
    My guess is this is a deliberate leak to discourage the US from intervening in Taiwan
    The existing US ABM systems couldn't stop a Chinese ballistic nuclear attack on the US mainland. Or a Russian one. They were not designed to. Attempts to fund such a system have been repeatedly blocked by politicians, over the years.

    Stopping an N. Korean attack is possible and various parts of a system for that have been implemented.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,448

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    All in the news today:

    *) A 76-year old man has been arrested over death threat sent to Labour MP Chris Bryant.
    *) Justice Secretary Dominic Rabb has had two or three threats to live and limb over the last couple of years.
    *) Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has told BBC Breakfast that he has been subject to death threats due to his job.

    etc, etc.

    The 'scum' comment feeds into this negativity: it's okay to hate 'our' opponents because they're scum. Lesser beings. The comments feed the sort of sh*t you see above. Death threats can be attacks even if they're never carried through: they cause fear and anxiety.

    She was bang out of order, and the above stories show where her sort of hatred leads.
    Well of course she was. And if you had seen my posts of the other day about confrontation in politics you will know how much I feel about this and for how long I have felt about it.

    But that does not mean those comments were not inappropriate at the time. In fact it was just more of the same horrible tribal stuff. I don't think he had even been declared dead before it started . It was in very poor taste.

    And this is a complete deviation of the point I was making.
  • Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,822
    edited October 18

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.

    Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.

    Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.

    The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.

    If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.

    Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.

    The EU however, regards the end result of the American scheme (unaffordable subsidies, tax incentives and grants) as things that should be limited rather than used in a race to the bottom when it's known most subsidy seeking firms will walk away the moment the subsidy has been used and on to the next foolish state.
    Yes, there’s a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, where states make themselves attractive without picking winners. Ireland is probably the best known example, and the EU have been trying to shut that one down for years.

    A lot of the American deals turn out to be poor value for the taxpayer, mostly because the companies involved have more and better lawyers than the cities and states, The important stats, such as numbers of new jobs created and average salaries paid, never seem to be met - but don’t seem to attract an enforceable penalty either. The politicians bend over backwards to sign these deals, but also don’t seem to be held to account for them at the ballot box.
    Voters see the announcements but because the actual detail is opaque, they rarely see that the end result doesn't match what was promised. So votes are won by winning the "factory" with few caring about the actuality.
    Just like 'levelling up"?
    I think that's what the Tories are hoping for.

    The reality is that we are going to have a large Government department, and an improved railway station but fewer trains to take us places

    How that plays out in areas that get neither will be interesting to watch.
  • Good morning

    Sir Lindsay Hoyle talks such good sense and says that if some of the language used was repeated in the House the person would not get away with it

    I came off Facebook some months ago and am not active on social media other than our families what's app group and do believe that twitter users should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    I am up for that. And if you look at Sir David Amess, you had a clear example of someone who didn't let himself be defined by political party point-scoring. He was anti-abortion but he was pro-refugees. He was anti-gay marriage but opposed cuts to overseas aid.

    Social media has a lot to blame for this and the clue is in the name, it's media. We regulate media for obvious reasons. We need to do the same for social media.
    I think some of the social media algorithms, and how they're programmed to operate, should be subject to statutory oversight.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,197
    DougSeal said:

    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
    TBF if you are aiming at Washington but hit New York… 🤷‍♂️
    Well, yes, not a bad outcome for the Chinese...

    Might be more of an issue if they are targeting launching stations in Montana or Wyoming though...
    I think all the Minutemen silos there have been turned into tourist attraction and prepper bunkers.
    From the peak of 1K or so land based missiles, the US is still operating 450 Minuteman III, IIRC
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694
    DougSeal said:

    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
    “I aim at the stars (but sometimes I hit London” - Dr W von Braun (allegedly)
    Did he say that when he was working for the Germans or the Americans?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    @Jonathan my wife just bought a brand new iPhone13 expecting the camera to be amazing and commented that my old Huawei Android from 2018 (which I use very infrequently now) still has a much better camera - with AI - on it.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Well, the US certainly has a lot more capability than they would ever admit to, but the noises do sound rather concerned.

    Maybe they’re trying to politely tell China that if they try that again, the US will be watching for it and prepared to react.

    That said, the suggestion is that this rocket could do several orbits before heading for the target with only a few minutes’ notice. I imagine that’s not easy to defend against, even with all systems armed and on alert.

    Cold War II does seem a step closer with this revelation.
    My guess is this is a deliberate leak to discourage the US from intervening in Taiwan
    The existing US ABM systems couldn't stop a Chinese ballistic nuclear attack on the US mainland. Or a Russian one. They were not designed to. Attempts to fund such a system have been repeatedly blocked by politicians, over the years.

    Stopping an N. Korean attack is possible and various parts of a system for that have been implemented.
    The other country that is unlikely to be happy about this is Russia given there are clear historical and strategic reasons why China and Russia are rivals.

    I'd agree with Charles that this might be a deliberate leak by the Chinese when it comes to Taiwan. However, given China's poor economic figures today, there is a balancing act for the CCP between retaking Taiwan and not having opposition due to a worsening economy.
  • Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    You are just adding to division and repeating that mantra is not helping
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,268

    Good morning

    Sir Lindsay Hoyle talks such good sense and says that if some of the language used was repeated in the House the person would not get away with it

    I came off Facebook some months ago and am not active on social media other than our families what's app group and do believe that twitter users should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us

    This site is social media
  • Taz said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    The genie is out of the bottle I’m afraid. The opposition and the govt have shared ownership of this. But it won’t change. I’m afraid it will get much worse. What changed since Jo Cox.
    It could stop. If all the major political parties came together and agreed a compact - basic rules of decent behaviour. Then all of them could go after the bottom-feeders out there who value nobody other than themselves.

    But you are right. The hard left in Labour are still ascendant, and the "Tory Vermin" line which Attlee so rightly condemned has stuck in popular culture - "never kissed a Tory" t-shirts and the like. And the populist right are literally the government. The basic decency of past Prime Ministers completely forgotten.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    The sensible thing to do is to keep a stock of your favourite wines, it doesn't need to be massive and then the delivery and additional cost is irrelevant.

    Having bottles of alcoholic beverages in the house unopened is a sign of having grown up.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.

    Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,822

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    You are just adding to division and repeating that mantra is not helping
    Nope he is pointing out the hidden but blindly obvious basis and end result of the new policy....
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,448
    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    Did they and if they did it was wrong, but it is interesting that still by the replies I have received that people are still focusing on something my post was not about to make political points.

    My point was that most did not jump to conclusions and the very few who did jumped both ways yet I get responses like I got here.

    It is like a day later nobody has learnt anything.
  • Farooq said:

    Good morning

    Sir Lindsay Hoyle talks such good sense and says that if some of the language used was repeated in the House the person would not get away with it

    I came off Facebook some months ago and am not active on social media other than our families what's app group and do believe that twitter users should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us

    This site is social media
    You seem to miss the point completely
  • eekeek Posts: 15,822
    edited October 18
    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Sitrep GoriLlas Order

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS

    As I said, I downloaded the app half an hour ago. Took 1 minute to set it up with Apple Pay

    I just, as a test, ordered 1 bottle of red wine. A decent Trivento Reserve Malbec. £8 at Sainsbury's. £8 + £.180 delivery from Gorillas

    This is 10pm on a Sunday

    I ordered it, as in clicking my phone, at 9.54pm. The app said "it will be there in 9 minutes". And it was. I have just collected it at the door. THE PROCESS FROM ORDER TO DELIVERY TOOK 9 MINUTES

    That's amazing. You can easily wait longer than that at a bar.
    I am surrounded by decent or very good shops that open late. Within 5-7 minutes walk of me there is a Co-op, a Tesco Extra, a Whole Foods, M&S Foods, and an Aldi. Within 10 minutes walk is a big Sainsburys and a very big Morrisons

    Even on a Sunday the Co=op and Whole Foods are open until 9 or 11pm. And there are dodgy tiny stores which sell basic stuff 24/7/356, on my streetcorners

    Yet none of them can match the convenience of this. I can order a rather decent bottle of red at 10pm on Sunday and it is here in 9 minutes? Even if Tesco Extra is open this late on Sunday AND it has that nice red it would take me 25 minutes to complete the process of walking down, finding it, buying it, coming back

    It is quite revolutionary IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE
    If you pay Deliveroo a subscription of £13 a month, you can have unlimited free deliveries with minimum order each time of £10.
    How can they afford to pay the people who deliver the goods?
    It's subsidised by VC cash.

    It is not remotely sustainable.
    Believe (based on grapevine & media reports) that many delivery-service drivers depend on tips, esp. as delivery companies have tendency to nickel & dime them (don't know UK equivalent!) on the apps, by deductions & other dodges?

    So I hear.
    Ppt p pop p pop
    Tipping isn't much of a thing for delivery in the UK
    The issue is the “service charge”

    Food price - ok
    Delivery charge - ok
    Service charge - if that’s not the tip then why isn’t it part of the delivery charge?
    Tip - I’ve just paid a service charge?
    Uber Eats started up in my area during lockdown, and offered some great introductory deals. So on a couple of occasions I treated myself to a restaurant meal, delivered.

    Not only is there a delivery and a service charge but the menu is more expensive than ordering direct from the restaurant.

    Not something I'm going to do again. In any case, if I'm paying restaurant prices I like to be actually sat in a restaurant, being waited on, etc
    IIRC the restaurant sets the food price. They have a love/hate relationship with the delivery services though, especially when they have a physical restaurant, with people sitting at tables and limited capacity for the kitchen to churn out delivery orders at a discount all night - which they do after the delivery service takes a cut, hence the inflated food price.

    The delivery service is really hoping you don’t work out the actual cost though, that they’re charging you a huge premium yet still they can’t come close to being profitable.
    The restaurant sets the food price but Uber charges the restaurant a percentage of the food bill. So the restaurants put up their prices for Deliveroo deliveries so that they are not out of pocket.

    Basically all these food delivery services are very expensive middle-men because last mile delivery is a very expensive business and there is no magic wand that makes it cheap.
    Well there is - but robotic delivery only works in confined spaces that can be controlled. Everything else requires a human to be involved and at that point costs escalate quickly.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    Good post. I agree that all sides overstep the mark at times, and we like to pick up examples of the other side doing it, but actually that sort of thing is unusual - politicians rarely abuse each other in personal terms (and it's always wrong). What tends to happen is that politicians and the media attack a party in OTT ways and then social media turns that into threats against individuals.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    Foxy said:

    The sensible thing to do is to keep a stock of your favourite wines, it doesn't need to be massive and then the delivery and additional cost is irrelevant.

    Having bottles of alcoholic beverages in the house unopened is a sign of having grown up.
    Checks the seal is unbroken on that bottle of Midori.
    Looks maturely smug.
  • Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    You are just adding to division and repeating that mantra is not helping
    Lets debate this. In what way am I "adding to division"?
    1. The policy does have the immunity clause
    2. Because the policy will end up with people drowning
    3. The policy is seen as essential for securing Tory votes.

    It is what it is. The challenge for all parties is to stop fanning the flames, stop hardening people's souls to the other. We all agree that people coming over on dangerous boats is Bad. How does drowning some of them help? The narrative has become one of invasion, of hoardes, or terrorists.

    How is a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach anything other than a punch to the stomach for anyone with basic human decency? How is the prospect of more drowned 3 year-olds suddenly a vote winner? What have we become?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    Foxy said:

    The sensible thing to do is to keep a stock of your favourite wines, it doesn't need to be massive and then the delivery and additional cost is irrelevant.

    Having bottles of alcoholic beverages in the house unopened is a sign of having grown up.
    You should change your name to Catty.
  • MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    Good post. I agree that all sides overstep the mark at times, and we like to pick up examples of the other side doing it, but actually that sort of thing is unusual - politicians rarely abuse each other in personal terms (and it's always wrong). What tends to happen is that politicians and the media attack a party in OTT ways and then social media turns that into threats against individuals.
    Now that is a post by @RochdalePioneers I agree with wholeheartedly
  • Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
    See my response to Big_G. The policy will drown children hence the need to grant immunity to Border Force staff carrying it out.

    I didn't write the policy. We can't ignore this kind of inhumanity, that is how we get MPs murdered. Same with shouting Scum and Traitor at each other.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232


    Lets debate this. In what way am I "adding to division"?
    1. The policy does have the immunity clause
    2. Because the policy will end up with people drowning
    3. The policy is seen as essential for securing Tory votes.

    It is what it is. The challenge for all parties is to stop fanning the flames, stop hardening people's souls to the other. We all agree that people coming over on dangerous boats is Bad. How does drowning some of them help? The narrative has become one of invasion, of hoardes, or terrorists.

    How is a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach anything other than a punch to the stomach for anyone with basic human decency? How is the prospect of more drowned 3 year-olds suddenly a vote winner? What have we become?

    Afaicr a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach was quite recently seen as an opportunity to attack Merkel by some people..
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    eek said:

    One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.

    Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.

    Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.

    The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.

    If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.

    Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.

    The EU however, regards the end result of the American scheme (unaffordable subsidies, tax incentives and grants) as things that should be limited rather than used in a race to the bottom when it's known most subsidy seeking firms will walk away the moment the subsidy has been used and on to the next foolish state.
    That's the problem though. They're viewing a race to the bottom as something that can be avoided or prevented and it isn't.

    In fact you want to get to the bottom of what works for you, indeed you want to get to the bottom of what doesn't and you want to get to the bottom of understanding why too. You want to get to the bottom of how to succeed. And whether you like it or not you are in a race against the US states, against China, against India, against Taiwan, against Singapore, Australia, Japan, South Korea and more. You're in that race whether you like it or not, the only question is whether you bother to compete in the race or not?

    So not only can you not prevent "a race to the bottom" but you shouldn't even try to either.

    Its noteworthy that as Thatcher said in the eighties before the EU Single Market was formed that the 12 European nations were collectively a bigger market than the USA. Fast forward a third of a century and the USA has surged past Europe. The EU today, despite having more people than in the eighties, is now a fraction of the size of America not bigger than America.

    The race never stopped. European countries simply left the field and didn't tie their shoe laces and turn up.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,694

    MrEd said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-hypersonic-missile-surprised-us-spies-with-its-space-capability-2021-10

    It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
    Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
    Not everyone has hypersonic technology…

    AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.

    By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
    The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.

    In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
    Another factor in this is the Boeing X37B. This is a robotic spacecraft/flight vehicle operated by the US military, and can spend multiple years in orbit - the latest has been up since May last year. It is capable of significant orbital plane changes (the direction it orbits), making it hard to track. It is used for experiments at the moment, but the system could very easily become an offensive system. The only thing stopping it is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits nukes in space.
    That really would change the game. Don't see the Chinese being able to match that any time soon (but maybe I am wrong).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435
    darkage said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Politics For All
    @PoliticsForAlI
    NEW: Forcing GPs to do more face-to-face appointments is ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’, the head of the British Medical Association has said

    Via @Telegraph
    7:30 PM · Oct 17, 2021"

    Let me get this straight. Asking GPs to do the work they were doing before Covid struck is "harassment" and "discrimination"?



    Yes. The poor dears might meet sick people.
    Change is coming, but it’s going to be a few years yet. Last couple of years have seen increased cohorts into medical schools, to finally increase the flow of new doctors. Supply and demand. The bma has kept training low for far too long.
    I understand people are still scared of Covid, that’s natural. But doctors I think need to understand that while e-consult, and phone triage will work great for many patients, it won’t for all, and they need to care for all.
    I concluded long ago that my GP was useless. This was after I went to see them about a hearing difficulty for my last in-person consultation and was told in a patronising but very insistent way that I needed to eat more fish. It turned out that the doctor thought I was someone else.

    Eventually when the found out what I was there for I was immediately referred to a consultant at the hospital, who I eventually saw 6 months later and who told me that there was nothing wrong with me and I was wasting his time.

    The e -consultations system now in place is useful, in that I needed a sick note for work and the doctor was very happy to comply after 5 minutes on the phone; they offered to sign me off for 'up to 2 months' without any examination.

    I think as someone said the other day, if it is really serious go to A and E. I get the feeling that the GP system has mostly become a very expensive type of social services.

    That's a surprising comment. In general I've found GPs to be thoughtful and analytical - have you felt that symptom, let's try this approach and talk again next week. The other day a GP rang me from home in the evening to say she'd been thinking about an issue that I'd raised and had a further idea that might be helpful. I was impressed - how many professionals in any field would do that? Clearly the standard will vary but it sounds as though you've been unlucky.

    As others have said, phone and e-consultations are fine (indeed preferable, for those of us who the comfortable online) in many cases, and so long as they're just options that's good. My GPs make it clear that they can be visited if we want, but if it's something easily dealt with by a phone call or e-discussion, so much the better.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,591

    Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.

    Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.

    I fully believe remote consultations are the only way to prepare the NHS for the future. in a multitude of ways. However I do think the public - particularly older members of the public - aren't ready for majority remote yet. So I see both sides to this.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629
    Farooq said:

    Good morning

    Sir Lindsay Hoyle talks such good sense and says that if some of the language used was repeated in the House the person would not get away with it

    I came off Facebook some months ago and am not active on social media other than our families what's app group and do believe that twitter users should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us

    This site is social media
    Socialist media (only kidding!).
  • eekeek Posts: 15,822

    Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.

    Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.

    eConsultations work - it means that people can be referred to the appropriate doctor if specialist knowledge exists in the surgery (ours has a Skin Specialist 1 day a week so it means my call back is usually when they are doing things).

    Given that I've spent 30 years drumming into people that the best answer a consultant can give is "I don't know but I'll find out and get back to you" I find it strange that people prefer to put GPs on the spot without prior warning and still expect an immediate response.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    edited October 18
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
    Kids are already drowning today thanks to our not ending the evil people smuggling that is ongoing from people attempting to flee the French Republic.

    The only way to stop kids from drowning is ensuring no kids are attempting to cross the Channel in dinghies. The way to do that is to do as Australia has done and deport to a third nation anyone who crosses the water in that way. If everyone who crosses the water that way knows they'll be instantly deported without seeing a court or UK soil then people will stop attempting to cross the water.

    Then we can have a safe and humane asylum system that sees people brought into the UK safely via planes not dinghies.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.

    Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.

    I fully believe remote consultations are the only way to prepare the NHS for the future. in a multitude of ways. However I do think the public - particularly older members of the public - aren't ready for majority remote yet. So I see both sides to this.
    Indeed. Online consultations have advantages for both doctor and patient - in certain circumstances.
    The problem isn’t that online consultations are being offerered, it’s that in many cases *only* online consultations are being offered.

  • Lets debate this. In what way am I "adding to division"?
    1. The policy does have the immunity clause
    2. Because the policy will end up with people drowning
    3. The policy is seen as essential for securing Tory votes.

    It is what it is. The challenge for all parties is to stop fanning the flames, stop hardening people's souls to the other. We all agree that people coming over on dangerous boats is Bad. How does drowning some of them help? The narrative has become one of invasion, of hoardes, or terrorists.

    How is a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach anything other than a punch to the stomach for anyone with basic human decency? How is the prospect of more drowned 3 year-olds suddenly a vote winner? What have we become?

    Afaicr a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach was quite recently seen as an opportunity to attack Merkel by some people..
    As I keep saying, this is the Draw The Line moment. Both sides have said and done things that upset the other. So no need for whataboutery. This is not about point scoring. This is about recognising that we are collectively in the gutter and need to collectively lift everyone out of it.

    Politicians are not their politics. I didn't know David Amess or Jo Cox. I am instinctively less critical of one than the other, but very very few politicians sit there casting votes we disagree with trying explicitly to do harm. All try to do what is best for their country in the best way that they see fit.

    America can't draw the line. It is lost. When Senator McCain campaigned against Senator Obama he had "supporters" hurling all kinds of invective out against Obama. He tried to stop it. Told them that whilst he disagrees on policy that his opponent is a patriot and a good man trying to do the best for the country.

    We need to do the same here. Call out actions and policies and campaigns that damage us collectively. Don't assume that the people pushing them are evil.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Sitrep GoriLlas Order

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS

    As I said, I downloaded the app half an hour ago. Took 1 minute to set it up with Apple Pay

    I just, as a test, ordered 1 bottle of red wine. A decent Trivento Reserve Malbec. £8 at Sainsbury's. £8 + £.180 delivery from Gorillas

    This is 10pm on a Sunday

    I ordered it, as in clicking my phone, at 9.54pm. The app said "it will be there in 9 minutes". And it was. I have just collected it at the door. THE PROCESS FROM ORDER TO DELIVERY TOOK 9 MINUTES

    That's amazing. You can easily wait longer than that at a bar.
    I am surrounded by decent or very good shops that open late. Within 5-7 minutes walk of me there is a Co-op, a Tesco Extra, a Whole Foods, M&S Foods, and an Aldi. Within 10 minutes walk is a big Sainsburys and a very big Morrisons

    Even on a Sunday the Co=op and Whole Foods are open until 9 or 11pm. And there are dodgy tiny stores which sell basic stuff 24/7/356, on my streetcorners

    Yet none of them can match the convenience of this. I can order a rather decent bottle of red at 10pm on Sunday and it is here in 9 minutes? Even if Tesco Extra is open this late on Sunday AND it has that nice red it would take me 25 minutes to complete the process of walking down, finding it, buying it, coming back

    It is quite revolutionary IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE
    If you pay Deliveroo a subscription of £13 a month, you can have unlimited free deliveries with minimum order each time of £10.
    How can they afford to pay the people who deliver the goods?
    It's subsidised by VC cash.

    It is not remotely sustainable.
    Believe (based on grapevine & media reports) that many delivery-service drivers depend on tips, esp. as delivery companies have tendency to nickel & dime them (don't know UK equivalent!) on the apps, by deductions & other dodges?

    So I hear.
    Ppt p pop p pop
    Tipping isn't much of a thing for delivery in the UK
    The issue is the “service charge”

    Food price - ok
    Delivery charge - ok
    Service charge - if that’s not the tip then why isn’t it part of the delivery charge?
    Tip - I’ve just paid a service charge?
    Uber Eats started up in my area during lockdown, and offered some great introductory deals. So on a couple of occasions I treated myself to a restaurant meal, delivered.

    Not only is there a delivery and a service charge but the menu is more expensive than ordering direct from the restaurant.

    Not something I'm going to do again. In any case, if I'm paying restaurant prices I like to be actually sat in a restaurant, being waited on, etc
    IIRC the restaurant sets the food price. They have a love/hate relationship with the delivery services though, especially when they have a physical restaurant, with people sitting at tables and limited capacity for the kitchen to churn out delivery orders at a discount all night - which they do after the delivery service takes a cut, hence the inflated food price.

    The delivery service is really hoping you don’t work out the actual cost though, that they’re charging you a huge premium yet still they can’t come close to being profitable.
    The restaurant sets the food price but Uber charges the restaurant a percentage of the food bill. So the restaurants put up their prices for Deliveroo deliveries so that they are not out of pocket.

    Basically all these food delivery services are very expensive middle-men because last mile delivery is a very expensive business and there is no magic wand that makes it cheap.
    Well there is - but robotic delivery only works in confined spaces that can be controlled. Everything else requires a human to be involved and at that point costs escalate quickly.
    Not easy to get delivery here, unless it's by a local 'food source' themselves. Don't think Uber etc go far outside built-up areas.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,822

    @Jonathan my wife just bought a brand new iPhone13 expecting the camera to be amazing and commented that my old Huawei Android from 2018 (which I use very infrequently now) still has a much better camera - with AI - on it.

    13 or 13 pro? The none pro models always seem to have worse cameras.
  • Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
    Kids are already drowning today thanks to our not ending the evil people smuggling that is ongoing from people attempting to flee the French Republic.

    The only way to stop kids from drowning is ensuring no kids are attempting to cross the Channel in dinghies. The way to do that is to do as Australia has done and deport to a third nation anyone who crosses the water in that way. If everyone who crosses the water that way knows they'll be instantly deported without seeing a court or UK soil then people will stop attempting to cross the water.

    Then we can have a safe and humane asylum system that sees people brought into the UK safely via planes not dinghies.
    Whilst I disagree with the deport to some mythical 3rd country bit, I respect that basic humanity of not setting out to accidentally drown the poor sods making such a dangerous crossing.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.

    Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.

    I fully believe remote consultations are the only way to prepare the NHS for the future. in a multitude of ways. However I do think the public - particularly older members of the public - aren't ready for majority remote yet. So I see both sides to this.
    I think you'll be pre-filtered through them and then come for a physical examination if necessary which might, say, take place over 3 hours from 1pm-4pm in the afternoon.

    If it cuts out a lot of umming and erring whilst the doctor tries to work out the backstory and digest the symptoms it might potentially be more efficient too - as both parties will be cutting straight to the chase when they do meet.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    There you are at it again: this government is evil because they are willing to accept a certain level of consequences as a result of their policy.

    The best way to limit drowning is to make sure that no one wants to cross the Channel is an unseaworthy vessel.

    That will save the greatest number of lives over time (equal to a policy of meeting them all in Calais with Rolls Royces and chauffeuring them on ferries - but that isn’t consistent with immigration policy)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    .

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    I was outraged on Friday both at the wicked murder of Sir David Amess and somewhat less so that it was immediately attributed on here to Rayner's earlier vile rant. As the dust sadly settles I understand @MarqueeMark had every right to make that political point scoring opportunity, and this is why.

    What Rayner's (the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, no less) ill thought out abuse, which has rightly come back to bite her, shows us is how unsophisticated the class warrior Labour Party remain. Still locked into a class war which died along with coal mining in the last century. Her comments were outrageous and she should be sanctioned for them. She brought politics into disrepute.

    By contrast Priti Patel and Boris Johnson operate a very sophisticated programme of political scapegoating that appeals to our baser instincts. They have crafted a Rolls Royce version of Trump's border wall, or Peter Griffith's tag line from the 1964 Smethwick by election. We may question it's morality, nonetheless it is very clever politicking.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309
    edited October 18

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    You are just adding to division and repeating that mantra is not helping
    Lets debate this. In what way am I "adding to division"?
    1. The policy does have the immunity clause
    2. Because the policy will end up with people drowning
    3. The policy is seen as essential for securing Tory votes.

    It is what it is. The challenge for all parties is to stop fanning the flames, stop hardening people's souls to the other. We all agree that people coming over on dangerous boats is Bad. How does drowning some of them help? The narrative has become one of invasion, of hoardes, or terrorists.

    How is a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach anything other than a punch to the stomach for anyone with basic human decency? How is the prospect of more drowned 3 year-olds suddenly a vote winner? What have we become?
    Of course it is not and there was a very good programme last night on BBC about the channel crossings filmed in France with the cooperation of both sides and it is clear that nobody wants fatalities at sea and hence why so much is being done to prevent the boats leaving France's beaches but apparently the more the French are successful the smugglers move further down or up the coast creating even more dangerous crossings

    I condemn Patel comprehensively, and have done consistently, but as the French border patrol said that turning craft back is not easy and is a matter for International Maritime Law. I would say I do not see anyone supporting endangering the migrants lives.

    I did mention that my son and his colleagues took to the sea yesterday to scatter ashes just off the Great Orme overlooked by the mourners and as they came back to the boathouse people on the pier applauded and even saluted them. He found it very emotional

    I would just say that the vast majority of our nation are decent, honest and fair minded citizens but of course we have extremes on both left and right and they have to be marginalised by the rest of us
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984

    darkage said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Politics For All
    @PoliticsForAlI
    NEW: Forcing GPs to do more face-to-face appointments is ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’, the head of the British Medical Association has said

    Via @Telegraph
    7:30 PM · Oct 17, 2021"

    Let me get this straight. Asking GPs to do the work they were doing before Covid struck is "harassment" and "discrimination"?



    Yes. The poor dears might meet sick people.
    Change is coming, but it’s going to be a few years yet. Last couple of years have seen increased cohorts into medical schools, to finally increase the flow of new doctors. Supply and demand. The bma has kept training low for far too long.
    I understand people are still scared of Covid, that’s natural. But doctors I think need to understand that while e-consult, and phone triage will work great for many patients, it won’t for all, and they need to care for all.
    I concluded long ago that my GP was useless. This was after I went to see them about a hearing difficulty for my last in-person consultation and was told in a patronising but very insistent way that I needed to eat more fish. It turned out that the doctor thought I was someone else.

    Eventually when the found out what I was there for I was immediately referred to a consultant at the hospital, who I eventually saw 6 months later and who told me that there was nothing wrong with me and I was wasting his time.

    The e -consultations system now in place is useful, in that I needed a sick note for work and the doctor was very happy to comply after 5 minutes on the phone; they offered to sign me off for 'up to 2 months' without any examination.

    I think as someone said the other day, if it is really serious go to A and E. I get the feeling that the GP system has mostly become a very expensive type of social services.

    That's a surprising comment. In general I've found GPs to be thoughtful and analytical - have you felt that symptom, let's try this approach and talk again next week. The other day a GP rang me from home in the evening to say she'd been thinking about an issue that I'd raised and had a further idea that might be helpful. I was impressed - how many professionals in any field would do that? Clearly the standard will vary but it sounds as though you've been unlucky.

    As others have said, phone and e-consultations are fine (indeed preferable, for those of us who the comfortable online) in many cases, and so long as they're just options that's good. My GPs make it clear that they can be visited if we want, but if it's something easily dealt with by a phone call or e-discussion, so much the better.
    You are realising why people vote Tory and go to live in Surrey. If they can afford it. It's all perfectly charming.

    I wonder what your experiences with your GP would be in a red wall seat.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    eek said:

    @Jonathan my wife just bought a brand new iPhone13 expecting the camera to be amazing and commented that my old Huawei Android from 2018 (which I use very infrequently now) still has a much better camera - with AI - on it.

    13 or 13 pro? The none pro models always seem to have worse cameras.
    How many people on here have printed out a picture from their phone in the last 12 months.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
    Kids are already drowning today thanks to our not ending the evil people smuggling that is ongoing from people attempting to flee the French Republic.

    The only way to stop kids from drowning is ensuring no kids are attempting to cross the Channel in dinghies. The way to do that is to do as Australia has done and deport to a third nation anyone who crosses the water in that way. If everyone who crosses the water that way knows they'll be instantly deported without seeing a court or UK soil then people will stop attempting to cross the water.

    Then we can have a safe and humane asylum system that sees people brought into the UK safely via planes not dinghies.
    I'm told a deal with Albania for an off-site centre is close to completion. All arrivals taken there immediately and then processed while waiting in Albania. They could be there for years. The government believes that this will result in a huge reduction of people trying to get to the UK in the first place. They're right. Greece has taken tough measures and are putting people back into Turkish territory, the number of migrants has become a trickle as they've given up knowing that 95/100 trips end up with them back in Turkey and the people traffickers don't exactly give refunds.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,858
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    Related to this - I see @gealbhan has been banned. I hope that's just for a few days. He/she completely lost the plot on Friday, but it was upsetting for many of us. I normally enjoy gealbhan's posts.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    eek said:

    Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.

    Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.

    eConsultations work - it means that people can be referred to the appropriate doctor if specialist knowledge exists in the surgery (ours has a Skin Specialist 1 day a week so it means my call back is usually when they are doing things).

    Given that I've spent 30 years drumming into people that the best answer a consultant can give is "I don't know but I'll find out and get back to you" I find it strange that people prefer to put GPs on the spot without prior warning and still expect an immediate response.
    EVER such a long time ago, when I was newly qualified, a young(ish) last came into my pharmacy, wanting something for a skin rash. Her doctor had, she said, failed to treat it. Various other medications she'd been advised to try, had failed.
    What could I suggest? I said that, given what she'd said, I'd have to have a think about it; could she come back in an hour or so.
    She was cross; apparently she had a train to catch. "I thought you'd give me something that would fix it now" she said and walked out.
    Whether or not she just wanted a temporary palliative I don't know, whether she'd heard of my (assumed) burgeoning reputation, I don't know. After she'd gone my assistant wanted to know if she'd thought I'd a magic wand somewhere.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615

    Then we can have a safe and humane asylum system that sees people brought into the UK safely via planes not dinghies.

    We hear this a lot from people trying to stop people claiming asylum at the UK border, but what I've never heard from these people is an attempt to change the rules so that people *can* apply for asylum before arriving in the UK. The British could accept asylum applications from British embassies overseas, or even grant preliminary acceptance by applying online or submitting documents by post. So why isn't that happening?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    @Jonathan my wife just bought a brand new iPhone13 expecting the camera to be amazing and commented that my old Huawei Android from 2018 (which I use very infrequently now) still has a much better camera - with AI - on it.

    13 or 13 pro? The none pro models always seem to have worse cameras.
    How many people on here have printed out a picture from their phone in the last 12 months.
    It's usually optical zoom, the higher models will have a telephoto lens. I find them to be of varying utility.

    Just to buck your trend a bit, I actually got photos from Greece printed! We have a really nice one of both of us on the beach that we're framing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.

    Erm, is that right? iirc the Jo Cox guy had spent countless hours online reading far right stuff.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
    Kids are already drowning today thanks to our not ending the evil people smuggling that is ongoing from people attempting to flee the French Republic.

    The only way to stop kids from drowning is ensuring no kids are attempting to cross the Channel in dinghies. The way to do that is to do as Australia has done and deport to a third nation anyone who crosses the water in that way. If everyone who crosses the water that way knows they'll be instantly deported without seeing a court or UK soil then people will stop attempting to cross the water.

    Then we can have a safe and humane asylum system that sees people brought into the UK safely via planes not dinghies.
    I'm told a deal with Albania for an off-site centre is close to completion. All arrivals taken there immediately and then processed while waiting in Albania. They could be there for years. The government believes that this will result in a huge reduction of people trying to get to the UK in the first place. They're right. Greece has taken tough measures and are putting people back into Turkish territory, the number of migrants has become a trickle as they've given up knowing that 95/100 trips end up with them back in Turkey and the people traffickers don't exactly give refunds.
    Its the only humane solution that works.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    eek said:

    Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.

    Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.

    eConsultations work - it means that people can be referred to the appropriate doctor if specialist knowledge exists in the surgery (ours has a Skin Specialist 1 day a week so it means my call back is usually when they are doing things).

    Given that I've spent 30 years drumming into people that the best answer a consultant can give is "I don't know but I'll find out and get back to you" I find it strange that people prefer to put GPs on the spot without prior warning and still expect an immediate response.
    I'm not totally opposed to them.

    But I am also aware they're more convenient for GPs and some people find them an obstacle who really do need to be seen to be diagnosed properly. If the doctor makes it harder, or creates the impression they might be put out by it, then it can put off many people - particularly older men - from persevering as they "don't want to make a fuss".
  • Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.

    I would suggest you are misreading the mood of the nation
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
    Kids are already drowning today thanks to our not ending the evil people smuggling that is ongoing from people attempting to flee the French Republic.

    The only way to stop kids from drowning is ensuring no kids are attempting to cross the Channel in dinghies. The way to do that is to do as Australia has done and deport to a third nation anyone who crosses the water in that way. If everyone who crosses the water that way knows they'll be instantly deported without seeing a court or UK soil then people will stop attempting to cross the water.

    Then we can have a safe and humane asylum system that sees people brought into the UK safely via planes not dinghies.
    I'm told a deal with Albania for an off-site centre is close to completion. All arrivals taken there immediately and then processed while waiting in Albania. They could be there for years. The government believes that this will result in a huge reduction of people trying to get to the UK in the first place. They're right. Greece has taken tough measures and are putting people back into Turkish territory, the number of migrants has become a trickle as they've given up knowing that 95/100 trips end up with them back in Turkey and the people traffickers don't exactly give refunds.
    Good, I hope that's true. They will have to face down screams of outrage first though.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    kjh said:

    One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.

    Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.

    I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?

    A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.

    The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.

    Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
    I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.

    So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.

    We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.

    Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.

    Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
    And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
    Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.

    It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.

    Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.

    This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
    There you are at it again: this government is evil because they are willing to accept a certain level of consequences as a result of their policy.

    The best way to limit drowning is to make sure that no one wants to cross the Channel is an unseaworthy vessel.

    That will save the greatest number of lives over time (equal to a policy of meeting them all in Calais with Rolls Royces and chauffeuring them on ferries - but that isn’t consistent with immigration policy)
    Where did I say evil? I think the policy is desperate more than anything else. They have made all kinds of claims about managed immigration they have no means of delivering on. This is the latest desperate measure to show some kind of control.

    The *policy* is the problem. "Accepting a certain level of consequences" - drowned people - is a policy "that will save the greatest number of lives" is the problem. Its deeply cynical designed to fan the flames of hate for all the people out there who see England as somehow under siege by jihadis and the like.

    We need to rehumanise people. Saying drowned children is an acceptable consequence is not the way to do so. Why not stand up to the element of the public baying for this kind of policy and say "no"? Same for the Labour lot engaging "Tory scum" chants at their conference or organised "March against the Tories" events so your delegates have to be inside a ring of steel to stay safe. Its wrong.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740

    Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.

    Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.

    I fully believe remote consultations are the only way to prepare the NHS for the future. in a multitude of ways. However I do think the public - particularly older members of the public - aren't ready for majority remote yet. So I see both sides to this.
    One of the times I did an e-consult I got an almost immediate call back - and missed it, mainly because I had been on my phone doing an e-consult and hit the wrong button. But of course there was no way of following up that call (I did eventually get an email).

    I find this odd. If I contact someone electronically then I expect a reply in the same medium.

    People also often miss calls, for a variety of reasons, but there seemed no intelligence from the surgery about how to establish communications - sending me a time for a telephone consultation would have been a better idea.

    (One of the problems is I rarely use my phone as a phone and I am always a bit surprised when it actually goes off)
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,858
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    @Jonathan my wife just bought a brand new iPhone13 expecting the camera to be amazing and commented that my old Huawei Android from 2018 (which I use very infrequently now) still has a much better camera - with AI - on it.

    13 or 13 pro? The none pro models always seem to have worse cameras.
    How many people on here have printed out a picture from their phone in the last 12 months.
    Well, me - for one.

    Most recently prints for mother in law for her photo frames of the grandchildren - but also with a few prints for me to go up in the office. Before that, still within last twelve months, some prints for us; we have a wall of photos at the top of or stairs. Still find value in printing some special photos and they're almost always from the phones. Only really have a flurry of real camera photos when we go on holiday and find the real zoom lens handy.
This discussion has been closed.