Geoffrey Cox won’t resign, and Boris Johnson won’t make him – politicalbetting.com

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1

Time for all Patriots to ask themselves a question. How can the fate of such a land be in the palm of this bloke's hands?

Someone been listening to "Hurricane" by chance? For a sense of pure outrage in a song possibly only ever matched by the Lonesome death of Hattie Carroll.

Yes, great song. But no, haven't had it on recently, it's more that I'm reading Chronicles. Trying to get the (paper page) reading habit back and decided that's a good one to kick off with. It's been on the shelf unopened for years.

To see us obviously maimed
Turned into basket case when one time we could have been
... a member of the Euuuuurowww

I haven't read that in decades.
"“The worth of things can't be measured by what they cost but by what the cost you to get it, that if anything costs you your faith or your family, then the price is too high, and that there are some things that will never wear out.”

A principle to live your life by in a sentence.

Yes. And I'm liking it so far. Doesn't disappoint at all. You'd expect lots of striking prose and sideways perception and you get it.

It's impossible, and whatever you kick back with I'll agree with, but gun to head and desert island bla bla, and without overthinking it, my fav 10 Dylan songs are in no particular order -

Positively 4th Street
Subterranean HSB
Blind Willie McTell
It's All Over Now BB
Knocking on Heavens
Hard Rain
Simple Twist
Forever Young
Hurricane
God On Our Side

Hurricane
Blowin in the wind
Like a Rolling Stone
Desolation Row
Mr Tambourine Man
One of us must know
Joey
One more cup of coffee
Highway 61
Just like a woman.

I guess I really like Desire and Highway 61 Revisited. The word genius is much overused but certainly applies to Dylan.

Yep, that's my fav 10 also.

He is a genius for sure. When I saw his 600 song catalogue had gone for £200m I thought gosh that's cheap. Imagine outright owning Tambourine Man for the price of a semi in Bognor Regis.

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fuck the stewards.

Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

Racist anti British stewards.

Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.

I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.

Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?

Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.

Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.

Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.

Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.

It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.

It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.

In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.

Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.

I'm not sure about the 1820s one either. They had to import English lawyers and English judges, i think, as the Scots ones couldn't understand this treason business. I've never got my head around it - I see a newish book is out so might try that.

Nigelb said:

16thC JCVI.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-shakespeare-actually-wrote-about-the-plague
… It was early recognized that the rate of infection was far higher in densely populated cities than in the country; those with the means to do so escaped to rural retreats, though they often brought infection with them. Civic officials, realizing that crowds heightened contagion, took measures to institute what we now call social distancing. Collecting data from parish registers, they carefully tracked weekly plague-related deaths. When those deaths surpassed thirty, they banned assemblies, feasts, archery contests, and other forms of mass gathering. Since it was believed that it was impossible to become infected during the act of worship, church services were not included in the ban, though the infected were not permitted to attend. But the public theatres in London, which routinely brought together two or three thousand people in an enclosed space, were ordered shut. It could take many months before the death rate came down sufficiently for the authorities to allow theatres to reopen.…

Well, we certainly have our very own Falstaff.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Private polling klaxon.

By Friday night one opinion poll, by Savanta ComRes, gave Labour a six-point lead, their biggest under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership and a number that will give Tory MPs a fit of the vapours. It echoes private election modelling by some Conservative pollsters, which shows that if there was an election tomorrow, Johnson’s current working majority of 77 would shrink to between 15 and 20.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/will-boris-johnson-get-away-with-sleaze-scandal-7qdqvwpwf

Putting the latest YouGov and Comres polls into the EMA leaves the Tories 26 short of a majority.

Transferring half the Green vote to Labour gives Labour most seats (but 44 short of a majority).


https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=37.4&LAB=39.4&LIB=9.1&Reform=2.8&Green=3.3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

LibDems gain Wimbledon, Winchester, Cheltenham and Carshalton.

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fuck the stewards.

Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

Racist anti British stewards.

Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.

I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.

Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?

Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.

Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.

Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.

Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.

It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.

It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.

In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.

Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.

I'm not sure about the 1820s one either. They had to import English lawyers and English judges, i think, as the Scots ones couldn't understand this treason business. I've never got my head around it - I see a newish book is out so might try that.

The Scots executed Thomas Aikenhead for having defective opinions on the Trinity in 1697, 14 years before the birth of David Hume.

pigeon said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Wow, this is like something sci-fi out of Hollywood:


Neil Stone
@DrNeilStone
Absolutely spectacular video showing how mRNA Covid vaccines actually work.

The human immune system - and the science which went into harnessing it through vaccines - is mind blowingly beautiful

Watch. Enjoy. Learn. Vaccinate.

https://twitter.com/DrNeilStone/status/1459267407550332930

The workings of the human body, and the natural world itself, are truly a mind bogglingly complex wonder.

Sometimes it is rather breathtaking to think all this is going on within one's own body, without one's ken, as one types some witty or puerile comment or other on PB.

Life is the most complex phenomenon in the known universe, after all.

Bah.

Life is nothing compared to DOTA2.

rottenborough said:

Hancock "intends to portray himself in a 'heroic light' " [in his new book]

(D Mail)

Genuine

You would have thought he would already have shown himself as having but a shaky grasp of things.

I have honestly never seen so many horrific haircuts on display (outside of documentaries about 1980’s East Germany) as I have seen in the rugby. Is it some strange inside joke amongst international rugby players?

Evening all

Mrs Stodge and I are two weeks off our booster vaccinations and it's just at the back of my mind the immunity level from the second vaccination at the end of May is falling all the time.

Is that an argument for suddenly moving all the boosters up a month? I'm not sure - if at 180 days we are only slightly less protected than 150 days, I'm to be convinced yet clearly there are many anxious to get that booster before Christmas.

I suppose the next question is how long will the booster provide protection - will we be back here next spring with round 4 or will the new booster offer something longer? Time, I suspect, will tell - it usually does.

The more immediate concern is the inability of the health services to get back to anything approaching normality let alone clearing the backlog of procedures and other care given the ICU beds occupied by those unvaccinated who are now sick with the virus. I can quite understand the anger of many toward the unvaccinated - 46 million have been doubly vaccinated and 12 million triply vaccinated according to the Government's own figures.

It seems reasonable to suppose as we continue to double and triple vaccinate and not to forget the 33,500 or so who got their first vaccination yesterday the pool for potential serious/life threatening infection will continue to diminish. I really hope we continue to see a fall in admissions to hospital as that will begin to re-open capacity for others who have been forced to live in often chronic pain through the virus.

As an aside, rail passenger numbers have stabilised at 62-64% of pre-virus levels during the week while on the Underground, Mondays are quiet (57%) but on other days it's 60-65% of pre-virus. Is this now the new normal - transport companies having to run 100% of services with 65% of passenger numbers?

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

They've handed Verstappen the title.

The stewards are Tw@s

Because? He inserted his hand all the way up Hamilton's slot and the stewards took a dim view and fined him for it. What did you want them to do instead?

He wanted him disqualified as well, because unless Verstappen has a DNF Hamilton pretty much can't win the title now.

But the stewards took the view it was a technical infringement, while Mercedes were blatantly cheating.

The rear wing thing is literally a technical infringement.
And the stewards were explicit in their ruling that there was no intent to cheat.

Given the detail, it’s also unlikely the car got any benefit in terms of speed, but that’s not a factor for the ruling.

I think the Stewards were spot on. And there is certainly precedent such as Schumacher's penalty at Monaco in 2006.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I posted this last week and interesting that someone has said similar to the Sunday Times.

No 10 is widely seen as chaotic and dysfunctional with factions developing around Carrie Johnson, the prime minister’s wife, and Dan Rosenfield, the chief of staff. Two insiders used the same phrase last week: “It’s much worse in there than you think.”

Dominic Cummings, from his latest and free-to-read Substack:-

Also No10 spads have split into hunter-gatherer packs in a war of all-against-all and are briefing against each other, with all the non-Carrie factions terrified of Newman briefing and having them fired. And the newly re-appointed Gazza hates the Carrie-Newman faction and the Rosenfield faction and is trying to get both Rosenfield and Newman fired. (Also remember, Boris-Self-Aware Mode never forgets that Newman was at Gove’s house the night of the Long Knife. Newman is there because Carrie wants him, not because he wants him.)
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/risk-aggression-brexit-and-article

stodge said:

As an aside, rail passenger numbers have stabilised at 62-64% of pre-virus levels during the week while on the Underground, Mondays are quiet (57%) but on other days it's 60-65% of pre-virus. Is this now the new normal - transport companies having to run 100% of services with 65% of passenger numbers?

For the time being, yes.

One would expect that the provision of trains would eventually align with actual customer demand, but that may take some years. The operation of the railways has been skewed to the needs of weekday commuters since forever, and so are working practices: a future in which trains may be as busy or busier at weekends will take some getting used to. Institutional inertia is tough to overcome.

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

People still wear suits?

Schoolfriend of mine became an eminent surgeon in a major London hospital. He met me after work in a Jeeves style combination, the dark jacket and pinstripe trousers thing. I inquired about it and he said the patients expected it.

Same for legal eagles I'm afraid ...

I wear jeans and trainers to work

boulay said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Omnium said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1

A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

I dismissed that as a joke but now....

I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.

Can relate.

I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.

He seems that disorganised.

As any stylish man about town knows, you should always buy two pairs of trousers and two jackets when you buy a suit….

I think that counts as two suits. I always buy two pairs of trousers though.

I bought three pairs of trousers with my last suit, on the basis that I have never had to get rid of a suit because the jacket has worn out.

I used to buy two pairs of trousers, but now don't. I find that a well made suit goes out of fashion before it wears out. I do have a couple of suits with no jacket, only trousers and waistcoat, as I cannot wear the jacket at work.

Without going all Jacob Rees Mogg, don’t buy “fashionable suits”? I’m sure skinny suit trousers aren’t overly practical in your line of work anyway? Lots of walking around would get a bit uncomfortable and nowhere roomy to stick a stethoscope!

And surely “trousers and a waistcoat” do not comprise a suit! So you have trousers and a waistcoat.

I like to dress well, but a trousers and matching waistcoat does surely compromise a suit. I only wear short-sleeved shirts at work because of the bare below the elbow rule. Waistcoats work well both to keep warm and keep my tie from falling on the patient. I like ties too!

I find have a half dozen suits, some winter, some lighter summer wear and get 4-5 seasons out of them before they start to look dated.

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1

Time for all Patriots to ask themselves a question. How can the fate of such a land be in the palm of this bloke's hands?

Someone been listening to "Hurricane" by chance? For a sense of pure outrage in a song possibly only ever matched by the Lonesome death of Hattie Carroll.

Yes, great song. But no, haven't had it on recently, it's more that I'm reading Chronicles. Trying to get the (paper page) reading habit back and decided that's a good one to kick off with. It's been on the shelf unopened for years.

To see us obviously maimed
Turned into basket case when one time we could have been
... a member of the Euuuuurowww

I haven't read that in decades.
"“The worth of things can't be measured by what they cost but by what the cost you to get it, that if anything costs you your faith or your family, then the price is too high, and that there are some things that will never wear out.”

A principle to live your life by in a sentence.

Yes. And I'm liking it so far. Doesn't disappoint at all. You'd expect lots of striking prose and sideways perception and you get it.

It's impossible, and whatever you kick back with I'll agree with, but gun to head and desert island bla bla, and without overthinking it, my fav 10 Dylan songs are in no particular order -

Positively 4th Street
Subterranean HSB
Blind Willie McTell
It's All Over Now BB
Knocking on Heavens
Hard Rain
Simple Twist
Forever Young
Hurricane
God On Our Side

Good choice. I'd add .

Ramona
Working Men's Blues
Back Pages
Beyond the Horizon

but with Dylan it's about your mood. Ramona's his best love song and Back Pages has to be there and on a Political site you've got to have Working Men's Blues but all great choices...Oh and John Wesley Harding...

stodge said:

pigeon said:

stodge said:

As an aside, rail passenger numbers have stabilised at 62-64% of pre-virus levels during the week while on the Underground, Mondays are quiet (57%) but on other days it's 60-65% of pre-virus. Is this now the new normal - transport companies having to run 100% of services with 65% of passenger numbers?

For the time being, yes.

One would expect that the provision of trains would eventually align with actual customer demand, but that may take some years. The operation of the railways has been skewed to the needs of weekday commuters since forever, and so are working practices: a future in which trains may be as busy or busier at weekends will take some getting used to. Institutional inertia is tough to overcome.

Yes, absolutely. The other side of this is whether the increasing amount of leisure traffic justifies the use of weekends for engineering works. Why close popular lines on Saturdays and Sundays when there is clear demand? Perhaps Network Rail should be looking at Monday-Tuesday line closures or restrictions.

Yes, you could easily see Monday becoming an engineering day.

Gallowgate said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

People still wear suits?

Schoolfriend of mine became an eminent surgeon in a major London hospital. He met me after work in a Jeeves style combination, the dark jacket and pinstripe trousers thing. I inquired about it and he said the patients expected it.

Same for legal eagles I'm afraid ...

I wear jeans and trainers to work

You're a legal eagle so check your contract about acceptable wear for Zoom calls. They can sack you whenever they like but not breaking the rules means they have to give you a cheque on your way out.

Foxy said:

boulay said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Omnium said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1

A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

I dismissed that as a joke but now....

I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.

Can relate.

I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.

He seems that disorganised.

As any stylish man about town knows, you should always buy two pairs of trousers and two jackets when you buy a suit….

I think that counts as two suits. I always buy two pairs of trousers though.

I bought three pairs of trousers with my last suit, on the basis that I have never had to get rid of a suit because the jacket has worn out.

I used to buy two pairs of trousers, but now don't. I find that a well made suit goes out of fashion before it wears out. I do have a couple of suits with no jacket, only trousers and waistcoat, as I cannot wear the jacket at work.

Without going all Jacob Rees Mogg, don’t buy “fashionable suits”? I’m sure skinny suit trousers aren’t overly practical in your line of work anyway? Lots of walking around would get a bit uncomfortable and nowhere roomy to stick a stethoscope!

And surely “trousers and a waistcoat” do not comprise a suit! So you have trousers and a waistcoat.

I like to dress well, but a trousers and matching waistcoat does surely compromise a suit. I only wear short-sleeved shirts at work because of the bare below the elbow rule. Waistcoats work well both to keep warm and keep my tie from falling on the patient. I like ties too!

I find have a half dozen suits, some winter, some lighter summer wear and get 4-5 seasons out of them before they start to look dated.

Sorry, wasn’t being serious, just a bit bored and being a dick!!

MaxPB said:

A lot of commuter services are running at much less capacity, the line at my parents place used to run at 6 trains per hour peak and 4 off peak, it's 4 peak and 2 off peak now. Even the underground seems to have fewer services, the northern line has definitely been cut down a fair amount, used to be able to get a train from Hampstead station within 2 mins of getting to the platform, it's usually between 3-4 mins now off peak and up to 2 mins peak.

Officially, I believe Transport for London, as condition for getting a financial bailout from the Government, had to agree to continue to run the pre-virus service.

I suspect what has happened is that drivers and other crew have been re-deployed or not replaced - one example is the Waterloo & City Line drivers were re-deployed to the Central Line to keep that line going. That's why the drain was closed for so long - it re-opened as a commuter service running only at peak hours but from 22/11 will be running a full Monday-Friday service (nothing at the weekends however).

There are frequent delays on the Met, Hammersmith & City and Circle due to "train cancellations" which I suspect means a shortage of drivers.

In other words, Transport for London are achieving service reduction by stealth - the services officially exist but there aren't enough drivers so some trains are cancelled.

Foxy said:

boulay said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Omnium said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1

A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

I dismissed that as a joke but now....

I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.

Can relate.

I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.

He seems that disorganised.

As any stylish man about town knows, you should always buy two pairs of trousers and two jackets when you buy a suit….

I think that counts as two suits. I always buy two pairs of trousers though.

I bought three pairs of trousers with my last suit, on the basis that I have never had to get rid of a suit because the jacket has worn out.

I used to buy two pairs of trousers, but now don't. I find that a well made suit goes out of fashion before it wears out. I do have a couple of suits with no jacket, only trousers and waistcoat, as I cannot wear the jacket at work.

Without going all Jacob Rees Mogg, don’t buy “fashionable suits”? I’m sure skinny suit trousers aren’t overly practical in your line of work anyway? Lots of walking around would get a bit uncomfortable and nowhere roomy to stick a stethoscope!

And surely “trousers and a waistcoat” do not comprise a suit! So you have trousers and a waistcoat.

I like to dress well, but a trousers and matching waistcoat does surely compromise a suit. I only wear short-sleeved shirts at work because of the bare below the elbow rule. Waistcoats work well both to keep warm and keep my tie from falling on the patient. I like ties too!

I find have a half dozen suits, some winter, some lighter summer wear and get 4-5 seasons out of them before they start to look dated.

A dentistry student friend had a session on how to tie bow ties as part of her course.

boulay said:

Foxy said:

boulay said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Omnium said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1

A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

I dismissed that as a joke but now....

I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.

Can relate.

I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.

He seems that disorganised.

As any stylish man about town knows, you should always buy two pairs of trousers and two jackets when you buy a suit….

I think that counts as two suits. I always buy two pairs of trousers though.

I bought three pairs of trousers with my last suit, on the basis that I have never had to get rid of a suit because the jacket has worn out.

I used to buy two pairs of trousers, but now don't. I find that a well made suit goes out of fashion before it wears out. I do have a couple of suits with no jacket, only trousers and waistcoat, as I cannot wear the jacket at work.

Without going all Jacob Rees Mogg, don’t buy “fashionable suits”? I’m sure skinny suit trousers aren’t overly practical in your line of work anyway? Lots of walking around would get a bit uncomfortable and nowhere roomy to stick a stethoscope!

And surely “trousers and a waistcoat” do not comprise a suit! So you have trousers and a waistcoat.

I like to dress well, but a trousers and matching waistcoat does surely compromise a suit. I only wear short-sleeved shirts at work because of the bare below the elbow rule. Waistcoats work well both to keep warm and keep my tie from falling on the patient. I like ties too!

I find have a half dozen suits, some winter, some lighter summer wear and get 4-5 seasons out of them before they start to look dated.

Sorry, wasn’t being serious, just a bit bored and being a dick!!

I know. I stated being a bit of a dandy when I hit 40, part of a mid life crisis I suppose. Women are expected to make an effort, and I think it just shows respect to reciprocate. I do get a lot of positive comments from female patients, but can't remember one from a man!

Opinium

I point labour lead

37

36

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Opinium

I point labour lead

37

36

Over hyping of the month then, that would still give the Tories most seats on the new boundaries in a hung parliament

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Opinium

I point labour lead

37

36

Over hyping of the month then, that would still give the Tories most seats on the new boundaries in a hung parliament

Boris and Starmer both on 30% approval

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Opinium

I point labour lead

37

36

Over hyping of the month then, that would still give the Tories most seats on the new boundaries in a hung parliament

Yet another example of pollsters ramping a fairly uninteresting poll. I thought Labour were going to be 6%+ ahead.

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Opinium

I point labour lead

37

36

Over hyping of the month then, that would still give the Tories most seats on the new boundaries in a hung parliament

Yet another example of pollsters ramping a fairly uninteresting poll. I thought Labour were going to be 6%+ ahead.

I do wonder why they ramp up a poll when in truth it is better for HMG than expected

Gallowgate said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

People still wear suits?

Schoolfriend of mine became an eminent surgeon in a major London hospital. He met me after work in a Jeeves style combination, the dark jacket and pinstripe trousers thing. I inquired about it and he said the patients expected it.

Same for legal eagles I'm afraid ...

I wear jeans and trainers to work

Have you tried that for a High Court trial yet?

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Opinium

I point labour lead

37

36

Over hyping of the month then, that would still give the Tories most seats on the new boundaries in a hung parliament

Twitter equivalent of clickbait.

However, when we go into more detail, the public are ok with MPs taking paid work as:
Nurses
Doctors
Charity workers
Farmers
Authors

They are against MPs taking paid work as:
Lawyers
Newspaper columnists
Accountants
Consultants
Bankers
Lobbyists https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1459614438118637569/photo/1

Opinium
Starmer net approval -6%
Johnson net approval -21%
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1459614507018432521

Scott_xP said:

However, when we go into more detail, the public are ok with MPs taking paid work as:
Nurses
Doctors
Charity workers
Farmers
Authors

They are against MPs taking paid work as:
Lawyers
Newspaper columnists
Accountants
Consultants
Bankers
Lobbyists https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1459614438118637569/photo/1

So basically on average anything where they would earn less than their MPs salary (except doctors), not OK with anything where they would earn more than they do as an MP

After stories have come to light of him working for the British Virgin Islands, 45% think Geoffrey Cox should resign as an MP, 13% think he should not.

Both Conservative and Labour voters think he should resign. https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1459615053704056839/photo/1

Scott_xP said:

After stories have come to light of him working for the British Virgin Islands, 45% think Geoffrey Cox should resign as an MP, 13% think he should not.

Both Conservative and Labour voters think he should resign. https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1459615053704056839/photo/1

42% do not know !!!!!

Labour are averaging a 2 percentage point lead in the last five or so polls. For the last few days, maybe a little more, the Tories have been playing some sort of game of chicken where the rules are similar to TMay's rules in the 2017 GE. That is: Who can think of the most egregious and unnecessary ways to screw up, annoy voters, support the centre left, look terrible and act like all our snouts are in the trough while putting up taxes and cutting benefits for people in work as well as out of work. Any by now most people think Brexit was a bad idea from the person who runs the country.

Labour are a couple of points ahead in mid term after all that. They should be pretty terrified by now. At this rate they are going to lose.

Sean_F said:

Yet another example of pollsters ramping a fairly uninteresting poll. I thought Labour were going to be 6%+ ahead.

Go back exactly a year and Labour were tied or just ahead on some polls.

It may be the ComRes is an outlier and the "true" position is a statistical tie or a small Labour lead. This is not a typical Parliament given what's happened so assuming it's "mid term" is unwise.

Again, back to the past and Labour led a couple of polls by four points by January but for most of the year in most polls they've been behind so it's an improvement in their polling position though more accurately a decline in the Conservative numbers.

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fuck the stewards.

Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

Racist anti British stewards.

Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.

I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.

Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?

Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.

Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.

Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.

Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.

It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.

It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.

In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.

Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.

I'm not sure about the 1820s one either. They had to import English lawyers and English judges, i think, as the Scots ones couldn't understand this treason business. I've never got my head around it - I see a newish book is out so might try that.

The Scots executed Thomas Aikenhead for having defective opinions on the Trinity in 1697, 14 years before the birth of David Hume.

Oh, quite so. But don't forget the Unitarian church in England had to call itself 'Presbyterian' till after the Napoleonic wars were over, for fear of accusations of treason.

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

People still wear suits?

Schoolfriend of mine became an eminent surgeon in a major London hospital. He met me after work in a Jeeves style combination, the dark jacket and pinstripe trousers thing. I inquired about it and he said the patients expected it.

Same for legal eagles I'm afraid ...

I wear jeans and trainers to work

As a general rule, juniors should wear outfits appropriate to the next step on the ladder. Dressing too high is a bit presumptuous, and when you are top dog, you can be a bit more experimental.

My supervisor wears cargo shorts and Superdry tshirts

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I have to say the thing that has been missed in all this, is the effort put in by Alok Sharma, President of COP26 to achieve a deal

Full marks to his determination , negotiating skills, and diplomacy

Watch out Boris, there is a dark horse on the horizon

Sharma before Starmer.

Alphabetically.

OK Dylan.
Tangled Up in Blue.
It's Allright Ma
Shooting Star
Workingmen's Blues
Senor (Tales of Yankee Power)
Every Grain of Sand
Mr Tambourine Man
Hard Rain
Blind Willie McTell
Don't Think Twice.

Which leaves a lot out tbf.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I have to say the thing that has been missed in all this, is the effort put in by Alok Sharma, President of COP26 to achieve a deal

Full marks to his determination , negotiating skills, and diplomacy

Watch out Boris, there is a dark horse on the horizon

"dark horse" - that's a bit racist. 😱

Just kidding, yes he's done well.

Foxy said:

boulay said:

Foxy said:

boulay said:

Foxy said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Omnium said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1

A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

I dismissed that as a joke but now....

I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.

Can relate.

I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.

He seems that disorganised.

As any stylish man about town knows, you should always buy two pairs of trousers and two jackets when you buy a suit….

I think that counts as two suits. I always buy two pairs of trousers though.

I bought three pairs of trousers with my last suit, on the basis that I have never had to get rid of a suit because the jacket has worn out.

I used to buy two pairs of trousers, but now don't. I find that a well made suit goes out of fashion before it wears out. I do have a couple of suits with no jacket, only trousers and waistcoat, as I cannot wear the jacket at work.

Without going all Jacob Rees Mogg, don’t buy “fashionable suits”? I’m sure skinny suit trousers aren’t overly practical in your line of work anyway? Lots of walking around would get a bit uncomfortable and nowhere roomy to stick a stethoscope!

And surely “trousers and a waistcoat” do not comprise a suit! So you have trousers and a waistcoat.

I like to dress well, but a trousers and matching waistcoat does surely compromise a suit. I only wear short-sleeved shirts at work because of the bare below the elbow rule. Waistcoats work well both to keep warm and keep my tie from falling on the patient. I like ties too!

I find have a half dozen suits, some winter, some lighter summer wear and get 4-5 seasons out of them before they start to look dated.

Sorry, wasn’t being serious, just a bit bored and being a dick!!

I know. I stated being a bit of a dandy when I hit 40, part of a mid life crisis I suppose. Women are expected to make an effort, and I think it just shows respect to reciprocate. I do get a lot of positive comments from female patients, but can't remember one from a man!

From my eye surgeon friend, I got the strong impression the hospital consultant's morning (or other) suit is like the robes of a priest of Asklepios, or a shaman's mask and frilly bits - all part of the ritual with powerful placebo effect, and not to be disrespected on that account, quite the reverse.

MOE movement by Opinium is category A poll ramping offence. 5 years, no time off.

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fuck the stewards.

Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

Racist anti British stewards.

Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.

I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.

Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?

Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.

Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.

Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.

Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.

It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.

It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.

In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.

Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.

I'm not sure about the 1820s one either. They had to import English lawyers and English judges, i think, as the Scots ones couldn't understand this treason business. I've never got my head around it - I see a newish book is out so might try that.

The Scots executed Thomas Aikenhead for having defective opinions on the Trinity in 1697, 14 years before the birth of David Hume.

Oh, quite so. But don't forget the Unitarian church in England had to call itself 'Presbyterian' till after the Napoleonic wars were over, for fear of accusations of treason.

No executions for heresy in England since 1612. Yes, lots of restrictions etc - especially on Catholics.

China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.

They have doomed us all

Razedabode said:

China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.

They have doomed us all

And blame the West when they start to burn, I imagine.

FrankBooth said:

Is it generally accepted that the decline in case numbers was due to half term?

Shoot me down if you must.

The case numbers have oscillated since early Summer in line with school holidays. However we have done very well to build immunity in school kids during that time. Personally I think there is some gap filling going on but must be running out of school kids to infect soon. My Y8 daughter's secondary school of over 1200 pupils had about 5 cases last week. Earlier in the term there were 15 in her class alone.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I have to say the thing that has been missed in all this, is the effort put in by Alok Sharma, President of COP26 to achieve a deal

Full marks to his determination , negotiating skills, and diplomacy

Watch out Boris, there is a dark horse on the horizon

It's his destiny.

Sharma's Karma

boulay said:

IanB2 said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1

A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

I dismissed that as a joke but now....

I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.

Can relate.

I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.

He seems that disorganised.

As any stylish man about town knows, you should always buy two pairs of trousers and two jackets when you buy a suit….

lol. That’s just buying two suits. You buy two pairs of trousers for all the time you spend sitting down wearing it, and minimal time lying down.

That was a joke……. Of course you have two pairs of trousers made (sometimes more if you want belt loops sometimes, braces another or side adjusters depending on the look you are after that day) and can always get a slightly larger pair made for the Christmas client entertaining season just in case the other shrink……

However there is a logic in having identical jackets - we used to call it the “Italian jacket” (for some unknown reason) where you could leave your reserve suit jacket on your desk chair and bugger off out and people think you are somewhere around the office….

Can be a risky thing to do. I remember a former colleague who did that. Unfortunately, he had a heart attack on the way back from the pub. Investigations were complicated by the fact that his employers were insistent that he couldn’t be dead as his jacket was still on his chair.

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sean_F said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fuck the stewards.

Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

Racist anti British stewards.

Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.

I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.

Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?

Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.

Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.

Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.

Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.

It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.

It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.

In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.

Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.

Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.

Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.

Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.

After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.

> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.

“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .

> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.

“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/13/homer-plessy-key-to-separate-but-equal-on-road-to-pardon-521237

Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.

Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.

Um, that's a negative, Sir. Lawyers always have and always will refer to Hadley v Baxendale (as written) as Hadley and Baxendale.

That was day 1 of law school stuff

Except when there is an R in it. R v Kray will always be spoken of as it is written.