1 - UK has stated that the 'current round of fish negotiations is concluded', with about 10-15% of remaining Macron demands fulfilled. Presumably they scraped some evidence together, or made firm decisions where they could.
So presumably more tantrums incoming soon from Petit Putin.
UK govt as ever not being proactive enough in pushing back wrt this. Should have done this back in June.
So Truss's desk is slightly more clear than it was last week.
2 - France up in arms about a Pres. candidate who has insulted Macron:
Then this astoundingly contemptuous tirade against Macron: "We will leave in his window this plastic mannequin, this automaton which wanders in a labyrinth of mirrors, this faceless mask which disfigures ours. We will leave this adolescent to seek himself eternally." https://twitter.com/frasermatthew/status/1467789119912873986
Seems rather more polite than the stuff Macron comes out with about elected leaders who won't do what he wants.
A superb description of Macron. Zemmour can write. I’d vote for him if I were - god forfend - French
Macron is a classic of the French Establishment who marketed himself as the polite kind of populist. One would would be acceptable in the fashionable salons as well as the local corner bar. He turned out to be popular in neither.
He rather reminds me of Blair. Only lesser.
Macron is more Clegg in policy, Blair in personality
Another example of Max trying to push a car he was overtaking off the track and preventing them from taking the corner. But Lewis is a very lucky boy. I am with Brundle on this one.
It would be very surprising if Hamilton loses from here, but it would be even more surprising if Red Bull don't sue after the race given what they're saying.
Max only made the corner by using Lewis' car as a barrier.
That is true but it could have been read very differently.
But that's why he's not been asked to give the position back, Lewis only went off track to avoid the collision. A collision that would hand Max the title.
One thing I haven't seen analysed is the difference between what the laws actually said at the time and the guidelines. The latter are not the law.
Are people sure that the two aren't being confused? The police were often confused by this as well, one reason why so many Covid prosecutions were dropped by the CPS?
Last year on 29 December we had a pub quiz at Daughter's pub. I was quiz mistress. Tables were set the right distance apart with all the rule of 6 and mask rules in place. We checked the rules at the time. Maybe it was because we were in a different tier, I dunno.
Appreciate that this doesn't explain the political impact. And there is also the question of the spirit of the rules. But, much as I dislike the PM, there are far worse things his government has done, than him hosting a quiz in the office via Zoom.
I also hope to God for Labour's sake than no Labour MP flouted the rules or the spirit of them at any point last autumn or Xmas.
I am not trying to defend what happened, but was interested to see this article, which ventures to suggest no laws were broken...
I think the Crown property exemption theory has been debunked.
Does Crown Immunity apply?
In this matter, the question of law-breaking is a separate issue for the police to deal with.
Regardless of the legalities, what this does is to poison the Conservative brand and Boris in particular.
Even if he is found innocent, the reputational damage is still done
Indeed, I don't think using an argument based on the technicality of Crown Immunity or Crown property exemption from Coronavirus regulations is helpful. The question is whether No 10 was doing something which would be against the rules and potentially illegal for anyone else.
But I'm a pedant and think people shouldn't bang on about something being illegal when, in fact, it isn't. It's potentially just as much a lie as some of the things Boris spouts.
Similarly, when someone is sentenced for a crime I like to be told what crime they have actually committed. Sometimes it is obvious, but sometimes not and we are told for example that two policemen have been sent to prison for sharing photos on WhatsApp. No they haven't, they were sent to prison for misconduct in public office.
Carry on in this vein and you'll end up like me - pedantically pointing out facts!
And that would never do in an era when "feelings" and "perception" no matter how daft are the only things that count.
Max only made the corner by using Lewis' car as a barrier.
Whether that's quite true or not, there was contact and so the corner cut can be seen in the light as evasion or car control in response to that contact.
Again, whether or not that is the truth of Hamilton's driving, the contact gave him legitimate excuse to cut the corner and to retain the position prior to a failed move.
What do we think has been pixelated from the bottom centre of the photo, between the two clocks? I was assuming it was another clock but, pixelated for what reason?
It shows the time in Moscow ?
My guess is the pixellated clock-blocker is a photo of young Wilf.
Why does everyone assume that the TV picture shown is actually on the leaker's wall?
If I was the leaker I would photoshop my TV picture onto a photo of someone else's wall and then obscure something in the picture to give it veracity.
How many politicians have 3 world clocks on their mantelpiece?
The more it is photoshopped the greater the risk for the newspaper publishing it.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Having lived through it Thatcher equivocated a lot more at the time than her subsequent reputation suggests. There was also the Belgrano nonsense where she was not exactly straightforward (if entirely correct).
The last totally honest politician I can think of was Ian Paisley. He never said anything he did not believe even when it made things difficult for him. Even his political enemies admitted that and, in Northern Ireland politics, that is quite an admission.
I still regard him as a nutter, but an honest one...
Enoch Powell was also honest, same with Tony Benn, those on the political extremes often are as they never compromise
I am not sure in Powell's case honest shouldn't be substituted for sociopathic. He was "truthful" because he had absolutely no understanding of anyone's view or sensibilities but for his own. To a lesser extent that would also sum up Benn. Both were idealogues, The theorising, bookish Benn personified middle class Marxist wokery to a far greater extent than the rest of us who are castigated for our middle class liberal wokery.
Both deserve to be irrelevant and no more than footnotes in twentieth century British politics.
Max only made the corner by using Lewis' car as a barrier.
Whether that's quite true or not, there was contact and so the corner cut can be seen in the light as evasion or car control in response to that contact.
Again, whether or not that is the truth of Hamilton's driving, the contact gave him legitimate excuse to cut the corner and to retain the position prior to a failed move.
But IANAF1L.
Yup, without that contact Lewis would have had to yield the position but Max can't overtake without those shite aggressive moves that force others off the track.
Exactly what is it a breach of? You need to specify what activity is illegal and which regulation it broke, and how.
As you do with any law.
Posted last night
I have commented in this story. From what I have been told - social quiz, alcohol being drunk, lots of people together at the office (teams of 6, up to 24 in one room) - it's a clear breach of the govt's guidance and a potential breach of the law, including by the PM https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1469788795813998595
Guidance is not the same as the law, as I kept saying ad nauseam last year.
A "potential breach" is a marvellously elastic phrase.
It is presentationally very bad for the PM because it looks contemptuous and also because of the stupid lies around it all - and the fact that seemingly every government department was doing the same thing.
But the risk for Labour now is that they will over-egg it and make it seem as if wearing tinsel in the office is somehow a criminal offence for which people should be locked up.
Wise words and the danger for labour and others is they start to look as if we cannot enjoy ourselves in this difficult environment and to be honest in my company wearing tinsel and santa hats by the staff in December was normal practice
Starmer is undoubtedly a roundhead Puritan Labour leader, whereas Boris is definitely a fun loving Cavalier.
Indeed it is the clearest contrast between a roundhead Labour leader and a Cavalier Tory leader since Brown v Cameron, albeit under May the Tories had more of a roundhead leader themselves
There was a Peculiar People chapel not too far from where I lived as a boy. And in later life, as an election agent, I used to have to deal with an election official who was a PP deacon. Nice chap; honest and cheerful.
Checking, they peaked at about 40 chapels, and were a quiet near-fundamentalist protestant sect who had some distinctives such as many being conscientious objectors - very much a "quiet of the land" sort of tradition afaics, I expect similar to Primitive Baptist / Methodist. Perhaps Calvinist and "Hymns of Redemption".
The kind of adherence to their own values that would be willing to be imprisoned rather than compromise.
They are now called the Union of Evangelical Churches.
For a similar peculiar sociology in a more catholic tradition, see the Catholic Apostolic Church ("Irvingites"), whose most prominent church building is now the Church of Christ the King, Gordon Square, Bloomsbury, London.
That million cases figure that Javid quoted in the HoC, which we thought was probably the number infected at any one time, but no it was actually referring to one million infections PER DAY....See Fig 11 in the following link
UKHSA call this modelling. It is not. Modelling requires some realistic assumptions. This is simplistic and pointless mathematics. The UKHSA 'model' explicitly ignores all the factors that would have an impact on the spread of the virus.
He can see the BBC threatened with being slimmed down, at the same time Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Disney throw huge amounts of money at anyone with a scintilla of talent. He sees the BBC's strength in not having budgets, just creativity and letting people get on with it, He notes that at HBO he only has to talk to two people, but at the BBC it's more like eighteen. .... He also talked about the two notes he got from the BBC when making The Thick Of It, one was to remove Michael Tucker's line "That's as inevitable as what they'll find in Jimmy Savile's basement." Pre-Savile death, of course.
The problem is that in the BBC, as in much of the public sector, any attempt at efficiency or reducing headcount is fought by slashing the people who do the work, in an attempt to create a backlash.
I recall an incident where an email from a very stupid administrator in the NHS was published. She boasted that, to push back against administrative savings, she'd put most of the nurses in the cancer section of St Ormund's Street Hospital on notice.
An interesting thing in the reaction to this was a general sense of "yeah, that's bad, but she was just doing what you do. Look, squirrel", in the press.
Indeed. Public sector managers are paid according to how many people they manage. DWP have been desperately trying to make Jobcentres "busy" to justify making all the temporary staff permanent. In truth unemployment is falling and most people don't actually need Jobcentre help to find work.
I don't know whether it applies nationally, but several of my relatives who are in their 30s have been able to book their boosters since last night. My son-in-law managed to get his appointment for later today!
I suspect that fairly soon the everybody who what's a booster will have had one, and we will be surprised at how many say no thanks, not anti-vaxers as they had the first 2 jabs, just board with this.
On that subject My booster is booked for next Friday, but over the last week I have had 7 text messages requesting that I book one. should I be suspishas that my original booking has not worked? or is this just a system that is not joined up? or are they trying to encourage me to move my booking earlier. if its the latter the messages are not worded that way.
I had something similar. My GP didn't know I had booked though the NHS site. It all went as planed on the day and time I had originally booked, so I wouldn't be worried if I were you.
Max only made the corner by using Lewis' car as a barrier.
That is true but it could have been read very differently.
But that's why he's not been asked to give the position back, Lewis only went off track to avoid the collision. A collision that would hand Max the title.
I think they did touch and they would certainly have done a lot more than touched had Lewis tried to stay on the track. It was super aggressive again by Max who had less to lose but as he didn't use his brakes he was well ahead.
That million cases figure that Javid quoted in the HoC, which we thought was probably the number infected at any one time, but no it was actually referring to one million infections PER DAY....See Fig 11 in the following link
UKHSA call this modelling. It is not. Modelling requires some realistic assumptions. This is simplistic and pointless mathematics. The UKHSA 'model' explicitly ignores all the factors that would have an impact on the spread of the virus.
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Having lived through it Thatcher equivocated a lot more at the time than her subsequent reputation suggests. There was also the Belgrano nonsense where she was not exactly straightforward (if entirely correct).
The last totally honest politician I can think of was Ian Paisley. He never said anything he did not believe even when it made things difficult for him. Even his political enemies admitted that and, in Northern Ireland politics, that is quite an admission.
I still regard him as a nutter, but an honest one...
Enoch Powell was also honest, same with Tony Benn, those on the political extremes often are as they never compromise
I am not sure in Powell's case honest shouldn't be substituted for sociopathic. He was "truthful" because he had absolutely no understanding of anyone's view or sensibilities but for his own. To a lesser extent that would also sum up Benn. Both were idealogues, The theorising, bookish Benn personified middle class Marxist wokery to a far greater extent than the rest of us who are castigated for our middle class liberal wokery.
Both deserve to be irrelevant and no more than footnotes in twentieth century British politics.
What do we think has been pixelated from the bottom centre of the photo, between the two clocks? I was assuming it was another clock but, pixelated for what reason?
It shows the time in Moscow ?
My guess is the pixellated clock-blocker is a photo of young Wilf.
Why does everyone assume that the TV picture shown is actually on the leaker's wall?
If I was the leaker I would photoshop my TV picture onto a photo of someone else's wall and then obscure something in the picture to give it veracity.
How many politicians have 3 world clocks on their mantelpiece?
The more it is photoshopped the greater the risk for the newspaper publishing it.
True enough, but if the photo is genuine then tracking it down should be trivial - a wood panelled room with a mantel / shelf with 3 world clocks and a small globe on it. Foreign office? Also the screen shows the reflection of a chandelier of some sort to the upper left of the room / fireplace with the bulbs arranged in a semi-circular cluster.
Somebody is bound to know exactly what room that is and with world clocks I would be thinking of someone who needs to know the time in two other places. I presume the central clock shows UK time and if it was not obscured then the offsets to the other two clocks would reveal the timezones they are focused on which in turn would allow the area of interest of the leaker to be determined.
The thing is, how long does a zoom quiz last? They must know the time it was taking place....
Fury has erupted after academics in New Zealand were threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society for criticising plans that would see Maori knowledge added to the school curriculum.
Current and former professors at the University of Auckland wrote a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Listener criticising a government working group's plans to give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom.
The letter was signed by seven professors, including Garth Cooper, a professor of biochemistry and clinical biochemistry at the University of Auckland.
Five members of the Royal Society of New Zealand complained about the letter, saying it caused 'untold harm and hurt', prompting the society to launch a formal investigation.
Critics claimed the ongoing investigation was an attack on free speech and that scientists were being punished for defending science.
They'll push the Ukranian army back to the Dneiper, take Kiev and leave it at that with Ukraine partitioned. That would give the Russians full control of the Sea of Azov, make the Russian occupied zone more economically viable than the DPR/LPR mafia state basketcases and a land bridge to Crimea which is all they really want (for now).
Before the tory toy soldiers get excited they need to remember there are 175,000 Russian troops on the Ukranian border and the British army is struggling to put a brigade of 5,000 together to meet its NATO commitment.
While I've advocated for a VONC I'm not expecting one in the short-term.
I expect the Lib Dems will win NS next week with a majority in the thousands, but then we're into Christmas and people will switch off from politics for a few weeks.
In January people won't be bothered about 'Last Christmas' parties anymore, they'll be bothered by what happened this Christmas and any possible Omicron restrictions in January. If the UK ends up back in lockdown then the PM must be ousted.
The UK should be almost uniquely well-placed to ride an Omicron wave without lockdown thanks to very high vaccine rates, booster rates, plus having the exit wave over the summer boosting natural immunity too. If we avoid an Omicron lockdown and other nations don't, then that could boost the government's popularity again prior to other possible news stories moving the agenda on like Article 16 being invoked.
For the bet I wouldn't take the bet either way as there's too many complications. If Boris really gets mired in worse he could jump before being pushed. Even if Boris recovers from this in January then it wouldn't pay out until potentially 2024 and there's always the possibility to have a VONC in 2023 on entirely unrelated matters.
We haven't had an exit wave. You and Max keep saying this. A sustained 40k new cases daily is neither a wave nor an exit. What we have done is maintained steady pressure on the NHS for months and months and now face the same Omicron surge as everyone else. The difference between us and everyone else is that we've had months of weakening of the health system and months of illness and death.
But as its other people's families dying and not your own, you're in favour.
So why have the numbers in hospital been regularly higher in the likes of France and Spain than in the UK during the last six months.
As illustration there are currently 13,855 in French hospital with covid:
Those figures are interesting, but as ever, it is hard to compare between two different countries, who might have different admittance criteria, rules and regs, and even number of available critical care beds.
France has 5.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people; the UK has 2.5 That alone might make admittance criteria very different.
When the nightingale hospitals were set up we were often told that extra beds are useless with extra workers to tend the extra patients.
We're often also told that other countries have much higher numbers of hospital beds.
Given that health spending in France for example is IIRC pretty similar to in the UK then how do they have more than double the number of hospital beds ?
Different usage policy ? Different care policy ? Different focus of health spending ?
That's a really good question. Perhaps they fiddle the figures in different ways to ours.
But I wonder if it all depends on what you count as healthcare spending - for instance we might include things they do not, such as some aspects of social care, dentistry etc. Or our NHS might be really inefficient.
The latter point might have something to do with it. There are, presumably, good reasons why much of continental Europe opted for social insurance systems to cover healthcare provision, rather than copying "the envy of the world"?
Differences are rather more stark than that. Here is the data on patients over the last 6 months.
UK patient nos have been below around 20% of peak, consistently. I'm inclined to think that that is better than massive fluctuations.
Fury has erupted after academics in New Zealand were threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society for criticising plans that would see Maori knowledge added to the school curriculum.
Current and former professors at the University of Auckland wrote a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Listener criticising a government working group's plans to give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom.
The letter was signed by seven professors, including Garth Cooper, a professor of biochemistry and clinical biochemistry at the University of Auckland.
Five members of the Royal Society of New Zealand complained about the letter, saying it caused 'untold harm and hurt', prompting the society to launch a formal investigation.
Critics claimed the ongoing investigation was an attack on free speech and that scientists were being punished for defending science.
I can understand teaching about Maori history and culture ('knowledge'?). Giving it 'equal weight' seems a good way to destroy science and technology in New Zealand.
The problem: knowledge, science and culture evolve. Mythology, once written down, does not.
Fury has erupted after academics in New Zealand were threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society for criticising plans that would see Maori knowledge added to the school curriculum.
Current and former professors at the University of Auckland wrote a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Listener criticising a government working group's plans to give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom.
The letter was signed by seven professors, including Garth Cooper, a professor of biochemistry and clinical biochemistry at the University of Auckland.
Five members of the Royal Society of New Zealand complained about the letter, saying it caused 'untold harm and hurt', prompting the society to launch a formal investigation.
Critics claimed the ongoing investigation was an attack on free speech and that scientists were being punished for defending science.
I can understand teaching about Maori history and culture ('knowledge'?). Giving it 'equal weight' seems a good way to destroy science and technology in New Zealand.
The problem: knowledge, science and culture evolve. Mythology, once written down, does not.
It shouldn't be in any science lessons. It should be taught as part of the sort of lessons kids get about citizenship and culture. Same as "god created the earth in 7 days" shouldn't be anywhere near Physics / Biology / Chemistry.
I had forgotten what a cool airport London City is. The towers of the wharf, the waters of the dock. So tiny. Yet chic
I love the Docklands. A lot of people sneer at it, but I lived there for a year in 1993/4, and it was superb. A place of true contrasts. History and modernity; money and poverty cheek-to-cheek. Yet so much hope.
Fury has erupted after academics in New Zealand were threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society for criticising plans that would see Maori knowledge added to the school curriculum.
Current and former professors at the University of Auckland wrote a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Listener criticising a government working group's plans to give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom.
The letter was signed by seven professors, including Garth Cooper, a professor of biochemistry and clinical biochemistry at the University of Auckland.
Five members of the Royal Society of New Zealand complained about the letter, saying it caused 'untold harm and hurt', prompting the society to launch a formal investigation.
Critics claimed the ongoing investigation was an attack on free speech and that scientists were being punished for defending science.
I can understand teaching about Maori history and culture ('knowledge'?). Giving it 'equal weight' seems a good way to destroy science and technology in New Zealand.
The problem: knowledge, science and culture evolve. Mythology, once written down, does not.
It shouldn't be in any science lessons. It should be taught as part of the sort of lessons kids get about citizenship and culture. Same as "god created the earth in 7 days" shouldn't be anywhere near Physics / Biology / Chemistry.
Oops. I actually missed the 'in science' bit. Yep, you're right.
What do we think has been pixelated from the bottom centre of the photo, between the two clocks? I was assuming it was another clock but, pixelated for what reason?
It shows the time in Moscow ?
My guess is the pixellated clock-blocker is a photo of young Wilf.
Why does everyone assume that the TV picture shown is actually on the leaker's wall?
If I was the leaker I would photoshop my TV picture onto a photo of someone else's wall and then obscure something in the picture to give it veracity.
How many politicians have 3 world clocks on their mantelpiece?
The more it is photoshopped the greater the risk for the newspaper publishing it.
True enough, but if the photo is genuine then tracking it down should be trivial - a wood panelled room with a mantel / shelf with 3 world clocks and a small globe on it. Foreign office? Also the screen shows the reflection of a chandelier of some sort to the upper left of the room / fireplace with the bulbs arranged in a semi-circular cluster.
Somebody is bound to know exactly what room that is and with world clocks I would be thinking of someone who needs to know the time in two other places. I presume the central clock shows UK time and if it was not obscured then the offsets to the other two clocks would reveal the timezones they are focused on which in turn would allow the area of interest of the leaker to be determined.
The thing is, how long does a zoom quiz last? They must know the time it was taking place....
4 minutes to 8 in the evening seems quite a likely time to be quizzing, in which case other clock is GMT+3 is Moscow (and a host of less interesting places). Most obviously it's the FO and intelligence services which like to know the time in Moscow. I am genuinely pretty sure there's a coded message there somewhere; it would have been dead easy to pixellate the Moscow clock
They'll push the Ukranian army back to the Dneiper, take Kiev and leave it at that with Ukraine partitioned. That would give the Russians full control of the Sea of Azov, make the Russian occupied zone more economically viable than the DPR/LPR mafia state basketcases and a land bridge to Crimea which is all they really want (for now).
Before the tory toy soldiers get excited they need to remember there are 175,000 Russian troops on the Ukranian border and the British army is struggling to put a brigade of 5,000 together to meet its NATO commitment.
You'd think they'd want to chop Ukraine in half along a (roughly) north-south line of partition rather than an east-west one though? AIUI the south is mostly Russian speaking. The north isn't.
It goes without saying that the UK can tut-tut about the situation but do nothing useful to help.
He can see the BBC threatened with being slimmed down, at the same time Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Disney throw huge amounts of money at anyone with a scintilla of talent. He sees the BBC's strength in not having budgets, just creativity and letting people get on with it, He notes that at HBO he only has to talk to two people, but at the BBC it's more like eighteen. .... He also talked about the two notes he got from the BBC when making The Thick Of It, one was to remove Michael Tucker's line "That's as inevitable as what they'll find in Jimmy Savile's basement." Pre-Savile death, of course.
The problem is that in the BBC, as in much of the public sector, any attempt at efficiency or reducing headcount is fought by slashing the people who do the work, in an attempt to create a backlash.
I recall an incident where an email from a very stupid administrator in the NHS was published. She boasted that, to push back against administrative savings, she'd put most of the nurses in the cancer section of St Ormund's Street Hospital on notice.
An interesting thing in the reaction to this was a general sense of "yeah, that's bad, but she was just doing what you do. Look, squirrel", in the press.
Indeed. Public sector managers are paid according to how many people they manage. DWP have been desperately trying to make Jobcentres "busy" to justify making all the temporary staff permanent. In truth unemployment is falling and most people don't actually need Jobcentre help to find work.
The responsibility of job centres to help folk find work was removed some years ago.
Musk looks like a dog has dropped a mess on his head. Since (I think) he has split up with Grimes, perhaps he's another 50-something trying to regain his youth.
He can see the BBC threatened with being slimmed down, at the same time Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Disney throw huge amounts of money at anyone with a scintilla of talent. He sees the BBC's strength in not having budgets, just creativity and letting people get on with it, He notes that at HBO he only has to talk to two people, but at the BBC it's more like eighteen. .... He also talked about the two notes he got from the BBC when making The Thick Of It, one was to remove Michael Tucker's line "That's as inevitable as what they'll find in Jimmy Savile's basement." Pre-Savile death, of course.
The problem is that in the BBC, as in much of the public sector, any attempt at efficiency or reducing headcount is fought by slashing the people who do the work, in an attempt to create a backlash.
I recall an incident where an email from a very stupid administrator in the NHS was published. She boasted that, to push back against administrative savings, she'd put most of the nurses in the cancer section of St Ormund's Street Hospital on notice.
An interesting thing in the reaction to this was a general sense of "yeah, that's bad, but she was just doing what you do. Look, squirrel", in the press.
Indeed. Public sector managers are paid according to how many people they manage. DWP have been desperately trying to make Jobcentres "busy" to justify making all the temporary staff permanent. In truth unemployment is falling and most people don't actually need Jobcentre help to find work.
The responsibility of job centres to help folk find work was removed some years ago.
Perhaps we can have a new Sunday game, guessing how the weeks media narrative will go and seeing how many we get right? 🙂
I’ll go first.
Monday - Inflation hit 8%, amid market panic, emergency meeting at BoE raises interest rates 0.17%. BBC NEWS coverage (under new BBC Director General ‘Dilyn’) is dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Tuesday - Scientists rolled out from first light to explain how Omicron will take one loved one from each family this Christmas unless restrictions are passed by Parliament. Gove makes compromise to rebels: pub passports or no pub, the nation is watching you; Rebellion fizzles out. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Wednesday - Having used Ukraine as diversion, Putin invades UK. UK ministries slow to respond due to being at “unofficial gathering in Santa hat”/WFH (delete according to which media outlet you work for). NATO respond by releasing their UFO files. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Thursday - the last available magic mixies cauldron identified in store in West Midlands; police erect barriers to prevent loss of life, but barriers overrun in late afternoon. The Christmas panic buying riots begin. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. In late sports news, Liverpool (now known as Putingrad Rovers) manage to blow a 3 goal lead to Newcastleburg and lose - Eagles posts expletives many of us have never even heard of before. Friday - Boris wins by election sending the Conservative Party home for Christmas in happy spirits. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by “invincible Boris” the most electorally successful Conservative in history.
Have a good Sunday everyone 🙋♀️
It's not too late to delete this.
Not the response I was hoping for. What have I done wrong 😟
Hyperbole. The truth is bad enough.
Hyperbole. It was meant to be a satire on current news agenda. I hoped for giggles 😕
He can see the BBC threatened with being slimmed down, at the same time Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Disney throw huge amounts of money at anyone with a scintilla of talent. He sees the BBC's strength in not having budgets, just creativity and letting people get on with it, He notes that at HBO he only has to talk to two people, but at the BBC it's more like eighteen. .... He also talked about the two notes he got from the BBC when making The Thick Of It, one was to remove Michael Tucker's line "That's as inevitable as what they'll find in Jimmy Savile's basement." Pre-Savile death, of course.
The problem is that in the BBC, as in much of the public sector, any attempt at efficiency or reducing headcount is fought by slashing the people who do the work, in an attempt to create a backlash.
I recall an incident where an email from a very stupid administrator in the NHS was published. She boasted that, to push back against administrative savings, she'd put most of the nurses in the cancer section of St Ormund's Street Hospital on notice.
An interesting thing in the reaction to this was a general sense of "yeah, that's bad, but she was just doing what you do. Look, squirrel", in the press.
Indeed. Public sector managers are paid according to how many people they manage. DWP have been desperately trying to make Jobcentres "busy" to justify making all the temporary staff permanent. In truth unemployment is falling and most people don't actually need Jobcentre help to find work.
The responsibility of job centres to help folk find work was removed some years ago.
Fury has erupted after academics in New Zealand were threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society for criticising plans that would see Maori knowledge added to the school curriculum.
Current and former professors at the University of Auckland wrote a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Listener criticising a government working group's plans to give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom.
The letter was signed by seven professors, including Garth Cooper, a professor of biochemistry and clinical biochemistry at the University of Auckland.
Five members of the Royal Society of New Zealand complained about the letter, saying it caused 'untold harm and hurt', prompting the society to launch a formal investigation.
Critics claimed the ongoing investigation was an attack on free speech and that scientists were being punished for defending science.
Perhaps we can have a new Sunday game, guessing how the weeks media narrative will go and seeing how many we get right? 🙂
I’ll go first.
Monday - Inflation hit 8%, amid market panic, emergency meeting at BoE raises interest rates 0.17%. BBC NEWS coverage (under new BBC Director General ‘Dilyn’) is dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Tuesday - Scientists rolled out from first light to explain how Omicron will take one loved one from each family this Christmas unless restrictions are passed by Parliament. Gove makes compromise to rebels: pub passports or no pub, the nation is watching you; Rebellion fizzles out. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Wednesday - Having used Ukraine as diversion, Putin invades UK. UK ministries slow to respond due to being at “unofficial gathering in Santa hat”/WFH (delete according to which media outlet you work for). NATO respond by releasing their UFO files. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Thursday - the last available magic mixies cauldron identified in store in West Midlands; police erect barriers to prevent loss of life, but barriers overrun in late afternoon. The Christmas panic buying riots begin. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. In late sports news, Liverpool (now known as Putingrad Rovers) manage to blow a 3 goal lead to Newcastleburg and lose - Eagles posts expletives many of us have never even heard of before. Friday - Boris wins by election sending the Conservative Party home for Christmas in happy spirits. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by “invincible Boris” the most electorally successful Conservative in history.
Have a good Sunday everyone 🙋♀️
It's not too late to delete this.
Not the response I was hoping for. What have I done wrong 😟
Hyperbole. The truth is bad enough.
Hyperbole. It was meant to be a satire on current news agenda. I hoped for giggles 😕
I am watching Impeachment on BBC Iplayer at the moment. It is a familiar tale about people trying to bring down someone they hated but could not beat electorally by exploiting foibles and trying to pretend that they demonstrated fundamental flaws or an unfitness to govern or whatever else they used to justify their odious behaviour.
Things really haven't changed in the last 25 years, have they?
I have to say that Sarah Poulson is absolutely brilliant as Linda Tripp. The most repulsive, vile and self interested character I have seen since GoT.
What about the possibility that someone might actually be fundamentally flawed and unfit to govern?
In an ideal world I would like to have a PM who is a good family man, who adores his wife and who lives by a strict moral code but, frankly, these are nice to haves. What we absolutely need in a leader is someone who gets the big calls right and steers us through difficult times. Boris's record on this is mixed, I don't dispute that for a moment. For every good call there is an unnecessary blunder, sometimes more than one.
But I am sick to death of this gotcha mentality in the media which means every little thing has to be the big thing and all sense of proportion is lost. There was a stunning interview by Justin Webb on Friday on the Today program where he was frothing that Labour was missing out on the chance to damage the PM by voting for new restrictions next week. The Labour Shadow gently tried to point out that what Labour was doing was supporting the recommendations of the CMO and the CSO and that just might be just a little more important than some political spat.
If I was editor of the Today program Webb would have done his last interview. It would have disgraced a red top chasing down a dodgy celebrity. For the BBC it was unacceptable.
The thing is that Johnson couldn't lie straight in bed. He is the Aldridge Prior of politics. Having a Prime Minister who is completely untrustworthy is highly damaging, even when he is telling the truth. If Johnson said that the sun will rise in the east, people would doubt it.
If the Tories want a sound family man, sober and of sound morals they only need to look to number 11.
The Chancellor who piled necessary taxes on NI instead of IT or a capital tax of some description? Who cut the benefits of the poorest to balance the books whilst protecting wealthy pensioners, again? I am a fan but no one in politics deserves adoration or unqualified admiration.
The Chancellor knows who the Tory base is (and of course he only ended the extension of a UC uplift he had given the poorest in the first place)
His job is to govern for the country as a whole and in particular for those who need the most help to live a decent life whether because of ill health, incapacity, afflictions etc. But he is not the worst and would make a good replacement if the current hysteria carries Boris away, which it might.
His job is to govern for the Tory 2019 voters who elected him with a majority of 80 first and deliver what they voted for.
This attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Rubbish.
If Labour won a majority in 2024 they would govern for Labour voters first not Tories, don't try and pretend otherwise.
That is the nature of FPTP majority governments
As I said that attitude is not going to help you achieve elected office.
Don't shoot the messenger it just won't.
When you next put yourself forward in an election you'd be well advised to remember that.
Stop sprouting rubbish, to achieve elected office you need to get the support of your party and get the voters out for your party and deliver on the priorities of your voters when in office. In any case I am already in elected office having got over 1,000 Conservative voters to vote for me, even if only at town council level.
You are not going to win voters who never normally support your party regardless, you can assist them in terms of personal difficulty but in terms of policy you will always vote for what your voters want first
The more you rant won't make what you say true. It is not.
If you are seeking national office telling people you will only govern for those who voted for you is not a successful strategy.
I have no idea what position you were elected to I know it was something in Essex but just giving you some advice for the future.
Please ignore it should you do wish.
You will govern above all for those who elected you, as they voted for your policies and platform. As I said you can help others who did not vote for you in terms of personal difficulty but you will not put their policy priorities over those of your party's voters.
Otherwise you will end up with a classic case of trying to appease everyone, end up pleasing nobody as your party's voters will not vote for you anymore if your party has not deselected you first and those who did not vote for you last time will still vote for their usual party not yours anyway
You should govern for everyone. No one is saying enact your opponent's policies but your own policies should be designed to benefit everyone.
This is such a transparently obvious truth that I can't believe I am typing it out.
Under FPTP you govern for those who elected you and gave you a majority. Your policies are what they wanted and yes you believe they benefit everyone too even if your opponents don't but above all they benefit your voters which is why they voted for them.
The only governments which govern for over 50% of the population are coalition governments of multiple parties eg as we had from 2010-2015 between the Tories and LDs or as countries with PR normally have. However such coalition governments by nature dilute what you can deliver for your party's voters at the same time, while still not delivering the priorities of the voters of opposition parties who are still not in government
Ok try a thought experiment.
If you asked any member of the Cabinet, Boris Johnson for example, whether their government governed for everyone or for "those who elected you" what would they say.
Well obviously they would say everyone. Because they are liars. And, even worse, politicians.
I love how his critics act like Boris is the first politician to be divorced from the truth. They're all as bad as each other.
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all told absolute humdingers of lies.
Boris should go but because he's gone native and is weak not because he's dishonest.
Who was the last completely honest PM? I can't think of anything untrue that Thatcher said so maybe her? Though her critics at the time might have said otherwise.
Having lived through it Thatcher equivocated a lot more at the time than her subsequent reputation suggests. There was also the Belgrano nonsense where she was not exactly straightforward (if entirely correct).
The last totally honest politician I can think of was Ian Paisley. He never said anything he did not believe even when it made things difficult for him. Even his political enemies admitted that and, in Northern Ireland politics, that is quite an admission.
I still regard him as a nutter, but an honest one...
Enoch Powell was also honest, same with Tony Benn, those on the political extremes often are as they never compromise
I am not sure in Powell's case honest shouldn't be substituted for sociopathic. He was "truthful" because he had absolutely no understanding of anyone's view or sensibilities but for his own. To a lesser extent that would also sum up Benn. Both were idealogues, The theorising, bookish Benn personified middle class Marxist wokery to a far greater extent than the rest of us who are castigated for our middle class liberal wokery.
Both deserve to be irrelevant and no more than footnotes in twentieth century British politics.
How much truth was in the 'Rivers of Blood' speech and how much was Powell peddling urban legends is still a matter of debate.
In the four months since the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, Zahra's family have quickly gone from employment to destitution and are now heading into starvation.
He can see the BBC threatened with being slimmed down, at the same time Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Disney throw huge amounts of money at anyone with a scintilla of talent. He sees the BBC's strength in not having budgets, just creativity and letting people get on with it, He notes that at HBO he only has to talk to two people, but at the BBC it's more like eighteen. .... He also talked about the two notes he got from the BBC when making The Thick Of It, one was to remove Michael Tucker's line "That's as inevitable as what they'll find in Jimmy Savile's basement." Pre-Savile death, of course.
The problem is that in the BBC, as in much of the public sector, any attempt at efficiency or reducing headcount is fought by slashing the people who do the work, in an attempt to create a backlash.
I recall an incident where an email from a very stupid administrator in the NHS was published. She boasted that, to push back against administrative savings, she'd put most of the nurses in the cancer section of St Ormund's Street Hospital on notice.
An interesting thing in the reaction to this was a general sense of "yeah, that's bad, but she was just doing what you do. Look, squirrel", in the press.
Indeed. Public sector managers are paid according to how many people they manage. DWP have been desperately trying to make Jobcentres "busy" to justify making all the temporary staff permanent. In truth unemployment is falling and most people don't actually need Jobcentre help to find work.
The responsibility of job centres to help folk find work was removed some years ago.
So what do they do then?
Try to stop people from claiming benefits.
And sanction them for trivial (or made up) reasons
Exactly what is it a breach of? You need to specify what activity is illegal and which regulation it broke, and how.
As you do with any law.
Posted last night
I have commented in this story. From what I have been told - social quiz, alcohol being drunk, lots of people together at the office (teams of 6, up to 24 in one room) - it's a clear breach of the govt's guidance and a potential breach of the law, including by the PM https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1469788795813998595
Guidance is not the same as the law, as I kept saying ad nauseam last year.
A "potential breach" is a marvellously elastic phrase.
It is presentationally very bad for the PM because it looks contemptuous and also because of the stupid lies around it all - and the fact that seemingly every government department was doing the same thing.
But the risk for Labour now is that they will over-egg it and make it seem as if wearing tinsel in the office is somehow a criminal offence for which people should be locked up.
Wise words and the danger for labour and others is they start to look as if we cannot enjoy ourselves in this difficult environment and to be honest in my company wearing tinsel and santa hats by the staff in December was normal practice
Starmer is undoubtedly a roundhead Puritan Labour leader, whereas Boris is definitely a fun loving Cavalier.
Indeed it is the clearest contrast between a roundhead Labour leader and a Cavalier Tory leader since Brown v Cameron, albeit under May the Tories had more of a roundhead leader themselves
There was a Peculiar People chapel not too far from where I lived as a boy. And in later life, as an election agent, I used to have to deal with an election official who was a PP deacon. Nice chap; honest and cheerful.
Checking, they peaked at about 40 chapels, and were a quiet near-fundamentalist protestant sect who had some distinctives such as many being conscientious objectors - very much a "quiet of the land" sort of tradition afaics, I expect similar to Primitive Baptist / Methodist. Perhaps Calvinist and "Hymns of Redemption".
The kind of adherence to their own values that would be willing to be imprisoned rather than compromise.
They are now called the Union of Evangelical Churches.
For a similar peculiar sociology in a more catholic tradition, see the Catholic Apostolic Church ("Irvingites"), whose most prominent church building is now the Church of Christ the King, Gordon Square, Bloomsbury, London.
Interesting - not one of the Civil War sects but a new one from 1838, a Methodist offshoot. New one to me ...
Fury has erupted after academics in New Zealand were threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society for criticising plans that would see Maori knowledge added to the school curriculum.
Current and former professors at the University of Auckland wrote a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Listener criticising a government working group's plans to give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom.
The letter was signed by seven professors, including Garth Cooper, a professor of biochemistry and clinical biochemistry at the University of Auckland.
Five members of the Royal Society of New Zealand complained about the letter, saying it caused 'untold harm and hurt', prompting the society to launch a formal investigation.
Critics claimed the ongoing investigation was an attack on free speech and that scientists were being punished for defending science.
Perhaps we can have a new Sunday game, guessing how the weeks media narrative will go and seeing how many we get right? 🙂
I’ll go first.
Monday - Inflation hit 8%, amid market panic, emergency meeting at BoE raises interest rates 0.17%. BBC NEWS coverage (under new BBC Director General ‘Dilyn’) is dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Tuesday - Scientists rolled out from first light to explain how Omicron will take one loved one from each family this Christmas unless restrictions are passed by Parliament. Gove makes compromise to rebels: pub passports or no pub, the nation is watching you; Rebellion fizzles out. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Wednesday - Having used Ukraine as diversion, Putin invades UK. UK ministries slow to respond due to being at “unofficial gathering in Santa hat”/WFH (delete according to which media outlet you work for). NATO respond by releasing their UFO files. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. Thursday - the last available magic mixies cauldron identified in store in West Midlands; police erect barriers to prevent loss of life, but barriers overrun in late afternoon. The Christmas panic buying riots begin. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by how scary Omicron is and how brilliant the booster roll out. In late sports news, Liverpool (now known as Putingrad Rovers) manage to blow a 3 goal lead to Newcastleburg and lose - Eagles posts expletives many of us have never even heard of before. Friday - Boris wins by election sending the Conservative Party home for Christmas in happy spirits. BBC NEWS coverage dominated by “invincible Boris” the most electorally successful Conservative in history.
Have a good Sunday everyone 🙋♀️
It's not too late to delete this.
Not the response I was hoping for. What have I done wrong 😟
Hyperbole. The truth is bad enough.
Hyperbole. It was meant to be a satire on current news agenda. I hoped for giggles 😕
Comments
He really studied the costs and benefits of deciding to go all in
Aggressive but fair by Max. As for no penalty: there's a long history of first-lap going off the circuit not being penalised. And it was a lunge.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1470012460509937679?s=20
Again, whether or not that is the truth of Hamilton's driving, the contact gave him legitimate excuse to cut the corner and to retain the position prior to a failed move.
But IANAF1L.
Both deserve to be irrelevant and no more than footnotes in twentieth century British politics.
The kind of adherence to their own values that would be willing to be imprisoned rather than compromise.
They are now called the Union of Evangelical Churches.
For a similar peculiar sociology in a more catholic tradition, see the Catholic Apostolic Church ("Irvingites"), whose most prominent church building is now the Church of Christ the King, Gordon Square, Bloomsbury, London.
UKHSA call this modelling. It is not. Modelling requires some realistic assumptions. This is simplistic and pointless mathematics. The UKHSA 'model' explicitly ignores all the factors that would have an impact on the spread of the virus.
https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-million-cases-day-by-christmas.html
Perez could wipe out Hamilton if there was an overtaking manouevere and leave Verstappen in the clear.
That should be one thing Mercedes ought to be wary of in pit stop strategy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59628609
Russia edges closer to war as new arms arrive on Ukraine’s border
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1470022077692403715?s=20
Somebody is bound to know exactly what room that is and with world clocks I would be thinking of someone who needs to know the time in two other places. I presume the central clock shows UK time and if it was not obscured then the offsets to the other two clocks would reveal the timezones they are focused on which in turn would allow the area of interest of the leaker to be determined.
The thing is, how long does a zoom quiz last? They must know the time it was taking place....
Fury has erupted after academics in New Zealand were threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society for criticising plans that would see Maori knowledge added to the school curriculum.
Current and former professors at the University of Auckland wrote a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Listener criticising a government working group's plans to give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom.
The letter was signed by seven professors, including Garth Cooper, a professor of biochemistry and clinical biochemistry at the University of Auckland.
Five members of the Royal Society of New Zealand complained about the letter, saying it caused 'untold harm and hurt', prompting the society to launch a formal investigation.
Critics claimed the ongoing investigation was an attack on free speech and that scientists were being punished for defending science.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10301209/New-Zealand-academic-got-CANCELLED-condemned-plan-teach-Maori-beliefs-science-classes.html
Before the tory toy soldiers get excited they need to remember there are 175,000 Russian troops on the Ukranian border and the British army is struggling to put a brigade of 5,000 together to meet its NATO commitment.
UK patient nos have been below around 20% of peak, consistently. I'm inclined to think that that is better than massive fluctuations.
The problem: knowledge, science and culture evolve. Mythology, once written down, does not.
It goes without saying that the UK can tut-tut about the situation but do nothing useful to help.
Huh !
Bonkers.
Teaching Maori mythology is a great idea. Giving it the same weight as scientific fact isn’t.
I enjoyed your post. "Eagles posts expletives many of us have never even heard of before" - bless - you are too good for us lot.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/life-afghans-starving-death-streets-forced-give-children-hunger/
Then take out Hamilton when he tried to overtake.
NEW THREAD
For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com