I know someone who is doing 5 tests a day just because someone they saw someone a week ago who now has Omicron. If that type of behaviour is being repeated then no wonder there are supply problems for tests.
Yesterday in SA they did 34,753 tests some of which had to be paid for by the person taking the test.
In the UK we did 1,476,216 tests all of which were free.
And our testing system is a "shambles"
Only an hour or so ago I heard on the radio a medic lauding the SA testing system because of how many PCR tests they do. Yet we in the UK do far more PCR tests than SA even if it is a smaller percentage of the total due to the vast number of LFTs. Some people just hate this country without any reason.
When you laud the efforts of country X you don't silently attack country Y.
So unless you've missed something in your reporting where the medic complained about the UK you seem to have leapt to a completely invalid conclusion.
It was in the context of "what has gone wrong with testing?" Saying SA does more PCR tests was only true as a fraction of the total testing, in reality the UK does over 20 times as many PCR tests per capita each day, and it is a smaller fraction of the total testing because we do a huge number of LFTs as well. It was a misleading statement, made by the sort of person who should know better.
There's a certain class of liberal that loathes this nation and everything about it.
Can you name any in particular?
Almost anyone on Twitter that Scott retweets here.
We can add "particular" to the list of words you don't understand.
I understand the word, I just want to reply however I choose and not play your game. There are certain particular people he retweets frequently.
If you want a specific name then https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy seems a prime example that he's constantly retweeting here that meets the description.
So there you are, a bunch of relevant countries showing the tests done and positive results. Note where South Africa and the UK are. There is as far as I know no country with a population like ours doing anything like as much testing as we are.
There is loads to criticise the government over their handling of covid, but testing and vaccinations are huge successes. You can't have infinite capacity for testing. But we have huge capacity, quick turn arounds and excellent data. People laughed Boris out the room when he said he envisioned us all taking regular tests for personal screening.
A more valid criticism is why only now is the government / NHS increasing hospital capacity for potential COVID patients. It is clear covid would already put more demand on the system before Omicron and even since Omicron, its been a month
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
Yes she did but that is not an acceptable position in the new Scotland. As one of the last serious taxpayers left in the country this is unfortunate.
Gay people used to face this same kind of "moral panic" cr*p. Giving trans people rights does not take rights away from women any more than taking giving gay people rights took them away from straight people.
Well done in confirming my point that most trans "supporters" don't have a first clue about what the actual issue is.
A lot of women need safe women only / man free spaces because of past issues / trauma they have experienced.
And by "women only / man free" its biological sex not gender that is the issue. Something the pro-trans outraged don't seem to get.
"Biological sex"... so Buck Angel should be using female spaces because he was female at birth?
And the late April Ashley MBE should be forced into the Gents?
No, of course not.
The issue is the edge cases, for example the woman who, as a man, committed rape, and is now requesting she be transferred to a women’s prison, despite the fact she has functioning male genitalia. That was an actual case, and resulted in two women prisoners being sexually assaulted.
The other issue is that those edge cases may not be a tiny minority of cases. Its easily, possible, as @IshmaelZ highlighted below, that there could be more men of bad faith than actual transwomen.
Then the issue is to apply the law. If I was in a Ladies changing room and I started flashing my privates at other women and making lewd suggestions, then I would be thrown out and possibly arrested. Being a woman would not save me from prosecution.
On a side note... a high profile legal case has just concluded were a woman was convicted of sexual matters related to other women. Being a woman is no guarantee of good behaviour, nor is it a get-out-of-jail-free card.
It did however allow me to get into the Ladies changing room and so facilitated something that would not otherwise have been possible.
So again you simply can't see the problem. You are starting from the principle that people are working in good faith while the issue is that a lot of the people are the exact opposite.
And yes you are right that the man would be arrested but that doesn't help the woman he abused / raped through the opportunity you gave him.
SARS-CoV-2 vaccination induces immunological memory able to cross-recognize variants from Alpha to Omicron https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.28.474333v1 ...We address whether T cell responses induced by different vaccine platforms (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, NVX-CoV2373) cross-recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants. Preservation of at least 83% and 85% for CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses was found, respectively, regardless of vaccine platform or variants analyzed. By contrast, highly significant decreases were observed for memory B cell and neutralizing antibody recognition of variants. Bioinformatic analyses showed full conservation of 91% and 94% of class II and class I spike epitopes. For Omicron, 72% of class II and 86% of class I epitopes were fully conserved, and 84% and 85% of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses were preserved. In-depth epitope repertoire analysis showed a median of 11 and 10 spike epitopes recognized by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells from vaccinees. Functional preservation of the majority of the T cell responses may play an important role as a second-level defense against diverse variants...
No, they must be wrong Nigel, I've been assured on here that memory cell immunity is irrelevant and the models that use nAb concentration are the absolute truth and that prior infection makes no difference to severity of future infections.
These scientists with their actual evidence can't be right, the models say they are wrong.
More seriously - this is very good news and shows that COVID is just the same as other viruses and pathogens, our immunity carries over across all variants. So even if the next variant evades nAbs like Omicron our memory cell based immunity will still ensure case severity is very low.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
Travel from the UK to France
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU
Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Exactly. They aren't treating us differently. They're applying the 3rd country rules which our government demanded be imposed upon us.
What’s the warning
Be careful what you wish for - it may become true.
I don't understand the complaints. What did they think "3rd country" meant? This is what they demanded and they've succeeded in being treated thus.
Just wait until next week when the usual suspects try and blame the French for our lack of Border Control Posts, staff or computers.
Except the rights of British citizens with legal residency in the EU that pre-dates Brexit have their rights protected by treaty.
I think this is just Macron being a twat again, assuming the allegation is true.
Blocking the UK, when Belgium had had case rates twice as high as our peak at that point for weeks was the action of a kneejerking numpty.
It’s totally Macron being a twat.
But it’s the resounding silence from the Remoaners that amuses
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Because it’s a breach of the Withdrawal Treaty in the same way that they got very excited about the administrative procedures on settled status.
It is - in the same way that other border closures were breaches of other treaties like Schengen. But its a pandemic - temporary breaches are permitted.
Again, we are being treated as we demanded - as a 3rd country. They had to arbitrate on which exceptions to their medically induced ban would exist and they have tret us like the rest of the world not Europe. At our request.
You and others complaining demonstrates English exceptionalism at its finest. That "treat us like a 3rd country" actually meant "we don't want to be European but you will do what we bally well say because we are English and that means we get to make all the rules".
Yes, there were plenty on here saying "ban all travel". Now the French are trying it (which personally I think is a waste of time) the same posters are trying to make a point of it.
Its totally a waste of time - they already have Omicron so they're as fucked as their neighbours.
But - and its a very bit but - it is an established principle that countries have the absolute right in an emergency to change processes even if written into treaty. This was the point being made last March "THEY CAN'T CLOSE THEIR BORDERS COS SCHENGEN" and yet they did close their borders and we didn't.
How a nation chooses to draw up its pandemic emergency powers is up to that nation. Some of our red list country bans have made no sense at all, yet here we are shouting at the French for doing the same. Instead of an arbitrary red list they have done an arbitrary EU list. We aren't EU, we demanded not to be EU and be tret like ROW and now we're Outraged that we're seen as not EU and as ROW.
What the frack is wrong with some people? This is what you wanted!
Closing to transit is unusual
I suspect the fear is that the person will be able to transit into XYZ at the border so leaves France with the problem.
It also strikes me as typical French point scoring.
It’s entirely driven by domestic politics. This effects very few people. (Fly if you need to go to your other home).
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
As far as I understand it, I think she meant that there are only two sexes.
I have no idea what she meant and I am not getting into a dull and sterile debate.
Just some advice Charles, you don't have to reply
All the best.
I have the right to reply as I see fit. As, of course do you.
Of course you do mate, I also have a right to call you boring - as I am sure you think the same for me. Take care.
I try not to insult people. You have been throwing abuse my way for months.
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
Yes she did but that is not an acceptable position in the new Scotland. As one of the last serious taxpayers left in the country this is unfortunate.
Gay people used to face this same kind of "moral panic" cr*p. Giving trans people rights does not take rights away from women any more than taking giving gay people rights took them away from straight people.
Well done in confirming my point that most trans "supporters" don't have a first clue about what the actual issue is.
A lot of women need safe women only / man free spaces because of past issues / trauma they have experienced.
And by "women only / man free" its biological sex not gender that is the issue. Something the pro-trans outraged don't seem to get.
"Biological sex"... so Buck Angel should be using female spaces because he was female at birth?
And the late April Ashley MBE should be forced into the Gents?
No, of course not.
The issue is the edge cases, for example the woman who, as a man, committed rape, and is now requesting she be transferred to a women’s prison, despite the fact she has functioning male genitalia. That was an actual case, and resulted in two women prisoners being sexually assaulted.
There are areas where birth sex not gender might be deemed the appropriate governing factor - eg sex offender prisoners (your example) or elite sports - but the issue is more about the default position. Should the principle be exclusion of trans people from the spaces of their gender unless a compelling case for inclusion can be made? Or should it be inclusion unless a compelling case for exclusion can be made? I think it should be the latter. And the case for exclusion should be based on evidence and reason not prejudice.
The other big issue is about the process to achieve a legal change of gender. At present it is long and burdensome. Many get stuck in transit or drop out of it entirely and give up. Amongst trans people, therefore, are many who have not transitioned, who are identifying as their desired gender, are living as that, best they can, but haven’t had it officially recognized. The ‘feelings vs facts’ question posed by the gender critical side of the argument is not easily answered imo despite the loaded framing. Who is confident saying to a person born female who identifies and lives as a man but hasn’t managed to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, “Sorry, facts is facts, you’re a woman”? Not me.
So the question is whether to streamline and demedicalize the process. I support this reform because it would improve the lives of this minority whilst everybody else would barely notice a difference if at all. Will making it easier to change gender cause lots of people to do it frivolously or for sinister reasons. I don’t think so. Why would it? It’s a profound thing to do regardless of how lengthy and bureaucratic (or not) the process is. We’re not talking large numbers of people here - why not help them when the cost of doing so is zero?
The May government were planning on making the change but it was ditched by this one and the whole thing has instead become a culture war battleground. I think it’s a shame. Several countries have this approach and they’re about to be joined by Germany. We should revisit and implement. Doubt it'll be anytime soon, it seems to have become politically impossible, but one day we should. When we do I reckon we’ll be looking back after a few years wondering what all the fuss was about.
I know someone who is doing 5 tests a day just because someone they saw someone a week ago who now has Omicron. If that type of behaviour is being repeated then no wonder there are supply problems for tests.
Yesterday in SA they did 34,753 tests some of which had to be paid for by the person taking the test.
In the UK we did 1,476,216 tests all of which were free.
And our testing system is a "shambles"
Only an hour or so ago I heard on the radio a medic lauding the SA testing system because of how many PCR tests they do. Yet we in the UK do far more PCR tests than SA even if it is a smaller percentage of the total due to the vast number of LFTs. Some people just hate this country without any reason.
When you laud the efforts of country X you don't silently attack country Y.
So unless you've missed something in your reporting where the medic complained about the UK you seem to have leapt to a completely invalid conclusion.
It was in the context of "what has gone wrong with testing?" Saying SA does more PCR tests was only true as a fraction of the total testing, in reality the UK does over 20 times as many PCR tests per capita each day, and it is a smaller fraction of the total testing because we do a huge number of LFTs as well. It was a misleading statement, made by the sort of person who should know better.
There's a certain class of liberal that loathes this nation and everything about it.
Can you name any in particular?
Almost anyone on Twitter that Scott retweets here.
We can add "particular" to the list of words you don't understand.
I understand the word, I just want to reply however I choose and not play your game. There are certain particular people he retweets frequently.
If you want a specific name then https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy seems a prime example that he's constantly retweeting here that meets the description.
She seems to be a fan of the BBC and the NHS. Next.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
Travel from the UK to France
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU
Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Exactly. They aren't treating us differently. They're applying the 3rd country rules which our government demanded be imposed upon us.
What’s the warning
Be careful what you wish for - it may become true.
I don't understand the complaints. What did they think "3rd country" meant? This is what they demanded and they've succeeded in being treated thus.
Just wait until next week when the usual suspects try and blame the French for our lack of Border Control Posts, staff or computers.
Except the rights of British citizens with legal residency in the EU that pre-dates Brexit have their rights protected by treaty.
I think this is just Macron being a twat again, assuming the allegation is true.
Blocking the UK, when Belgium had had case rates twice as high as our peak at that point for weeks was the action of a kneejerking numpty.
It’s totally Macron being a twat.
But it’s the resounding silence from the Remoaners that amuses
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Because it’s a breach of the Withdrawal Treaty in the same way that they got very excited about the administrative procedures on settled status.
It is - in the same way that other border closures were breaches of other treaties like Schengen. But its a pandemic - temporary breaches are permitted.
Again, we are being treated as we demanded - as a 3rd country. They had to arbitrate on which exceptions to their medically induced ban would exist and they have tret us like the rest of the world not Europe. At our request.
You and others complaining demonstrates English exceptionalism at its finest. That "treat us like a 3rd country" actually meant "we don't want to be European but you will do what we bally well say because we are English and that means we get to make all the rules".
Yes, there were plenty on here saying "ban all travel". Now the French are trying it (which personally I think is a waste of time) the same posters are trying to make a point of it.
Its totally a waste of time - they already have Omicron so they're as fucked as their neighbours.
But - and its a very bit but - it is an established principle that countries have the absolute right in an emergency to change processes even if written into treaty. This was the point being made last March "THEY CAN'T CLOSE THEIR BORDERS COS SCHENGEN" and yet they did close their borders and we didn't.
How a nation chooses to draw up its pandemic emergency powers is up to that nation. Some of our red list country bans have made no sense at all, yet here we are shouting at the French for doing the same. Instead of an arbitrary red list they have done an arbitrary EU list. We aren't EU, we demanded not to be EU and be tret like ROW and now we're Outraged that we're seen as not EU and as ROW.
What the frack is wrong with some people? This is what you wanted!
Closing to transit is unusual
I suspect the fear is that the person will be able to transit into XYZ at the border so leaves France with the problem.
It also strikes me as typical French point scoring.
It’s entirely driven by domestic politics. This effects very few people. (Fly if you need to go to your other home).
But the hypocrisy is deafening
Probably impacts a fair few people as a lot of people will be travelling by car to see all their families at this time of year.
As a point of political point scoring the timing couldn't be better / worse for impacting Brits.
There is loads to criticise the government over their handling of covid, but testing and vaccinations are huge successes. You can't have infinite capacity for testing. But we have huge capacity, quick turn arounds and excellent data. People laughed Boris out the room when he said he envisioned us all taking regular tests for personal screening.
A more valid criticism is why only now is the government / NHS increasing hospital capacity for potential COVID patients. It is clear covid would already put more demand on the system before Omicron and even since Omicron, its been a month
I'm not even arguing that UK testing is good enough, what bugs me is the belief that too many have that it is easy to do better, and that the UK is bad at testing. The only countries that conduct more tests have huge populations which they are testing less frequently, and the only countries that test more frequently have much smaller populations and do a lot less tests in total. The UK's testing operation is by any reasonable measure amongst the very best in the world, and it should be because it is costing us a fortune.
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
Yes she did but that is not an acceptable position in the new Scotland. As one of the last serious taxpayers left in the country this is unfortunate.
Gay people used to face this same kind of "moral panic" cr*p. Giving trans people rights does not take rights away from women any more than taking giving gay people rights took them away from straight people.
That is just bollox Bev, pardon the pun. Giving men the rights to be in women's places where they have to undress etc is just totally wrong given that 90% of them still have their block and tackle and some are real bad un's. You cannot trample the majority's rights on the whim of a very small minority who want extra rights at the expense of the majority.
I think that focuses on the central point Malcolm. The problem with the Scottish legislation in particular is that it gives you the right to identify and be treated as a woman when merely being committed to the path before any drugs, surgery etc have been applied and when they are still biologically operative men.
I have no problem at all in such people wanting to dress, name themselves and live as a woman if that is their preference. Good luck to them. I do have a problem at the edge cases, such as prisons, if the person concerned has not gone past the stage of being able to penetrate anyone with their penis. A reasonably simple recalibration on this could take an awful lot of heat out of the debate.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to pick brains on here regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. My questions are:
People on here have talked about her revealing names as part of a plea bargain, but as the Maxwell family saying they are challenging the verdict, wouldn't revealing names be tantamount to accepting the guilty verdict?
What are the chances of the Maxwells repeatedly challenging on points of law until the verdict is overturned?
Where is the Maxwell family getting the money from for this extensive and expensive legal defence?
I would genuinely welcome any thoughts on these matters.
Too late for a plea bargain which as the name suggests involves pleading guilty and is a deal with the prosecution who, at least in English law, are now out of the picture. Sentencing is for the judge. The suggestion that she can spill beans at this stage to reduce her sentence verges on conspiracy theory, but some conspiracy theories are true.
Can't see an appeal succeeding certainly not on all counts. No idea about finances, she may have some Epstein money left and has a rich husband
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
As far as I understand it, I think she meant that there are only two sexes.
I have no idea what she meant and I am not getting into a dull and sterile debate.
Just some advice Charles, you don't have to reply
All the best.
I have the right to reply as I see fit. As, of course do you.
Of course you do mate, I also have a right to call you boring - as I am sure you think the same for me. Take care.
Maybe it's just me, but whenever someone uses the word "mate" it sounds very sarcastic in my opinion, as if they're pretending to be friendly but don't really mean it. That's why I tend not to use it.
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
As far as I understand it, I think she meant that there are only two sexes.
I have no idea what she meant and I am not getting into a dull and sterile debate.
Just some advice Charles, you don't have to reply
All the best.
I have the right to reply as I see fit. As, of course do you.
Of course you do mate, I also have a right to call you boring - as I am sure you think the same for me. Take care.
I try not to insult people. You have been throwing abuse my way for months.
I know someone who is doing 5 tests a day just because someone they saw someone a week ago who now has Omicron. If that type of behaviour is being repeated then no wonder there are supply problems for tests.
Yesterday in SA they did 34,753 tests some of which had to be paid for by the person taking the test.
In the UK we did 1,476,216 tests all of which were free.
And our testing system is a "shambles"
Only an hour or so ago I heard on the radio a medic lauding the SA testing system because of how many PCR tests they do. Yet we in the UK do far more PCR tests than SA even if it is a smaller percentage of the total due to the vast number of LFTs. Some people just hate this country without any reason.
When you laud the efforts of country X you don't silently attack country Y.
So unless you've missed something in your reporting where the medic complained about the UK you seem to have leapt to a completely invalid conclusion.
It was in the context of "what has gone wrong with testing?" Saying SA does more PCR tests was only true as a fraction of the total testing, in reality the UK does over 20 times as many PCR tests per capita each day, and it is a smaller fraction of the total testing because we do a huge number of LFTs as well. It was a misleading statement, made by the sort of person who should know better.
There's a certain class of liberal that loathes this nation and everything about it.
Can you name any in particular?
Almost anyone on Twitter that Scott retweets here.
We can add "particular" to the list of words you don't understand.
I understand the word, I just want to reply however I choose and not play your game. There are certain particular people he retweets frequently.
If you want a specific name then https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy seems a prime example that he's constantly retweeting here that meets the description.
She seems to be a fan of the BBC and the NHS. Next.
And that stops you from loathing this country? Oookay.
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
As far as I understand it, I think she meant that there are only two sexes.
I have no idea what she meant and I am not getting into a dull and sterile debate.
Just some advice Charles, you don't have to reply
All the best.
I have the right to reply as I see fit. As, of course do you.
Of course you do mate, I also have a right to call you boring - as I am sure you think the same for me. Take care.
I try not to insult people. You have been throwing abuse my way for months.
You've insulted me many times, I am very happy to bury the hatchet here but you did say you were going to ignore my posting, so I am surprised that you keep responding.
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
As far as I understand it, I think she meant that there are only two sexes.
I have no idea what she meant and I am not getting into a dull and sterile debate.
Just some advice Charles, you don't have to reply
All the best.
I have the right to reply as I see fit. As, of course do you.
Of course you do mate, I also have a right to call you boring - as I am sure you think the same for me. Take care.
Maybe it's just me, but whenever someone uses the word "mate" it sounds very sarcastic in my opinion, as if they're pretending to be friendly but don't really mean it. That's why I tend not to use it.
So there you are, a bunch of relevant countries showing the tests done and positive results. Note where South Africa and the UK are. There is as far as I know no country with a population like ours doing anything like as much testing as we are.
Rather than moan about what is in fact an extremely efficient mass testing facility I think that we should be asking whether our huge commitment to this is a good use of scarce resources.
As a means of identifying those infected and requiring them to self isolate it just doesn't seem to have worked. Countries with much less testing seem to manage to control their R rate at least as well as the UK, better in many cases. As a means of identifying how much Covid is about it seems a bit voodoo pollish and it may be that a smaller more balanced sample would be at least as useful.
I know zero about cricket, but even I have heard the ECB have big issues with racism and the English team are hopeless.
I suspect those two things are linked in some way.
As you say you don't know anything about cricket. England team is the premier one day team in the world and lots of diversity within that team.
I think the only place with racism issues was Yorkshire and that's because YCCC seems to follow the Yorkshire approach that if you haven't lived in Yorkshire since at least Viking times (and have the family tree to back it up) you aren't a true Yorkshireman.
There is an wider issue with a lack of particularly black kids coming through. But that is less to do with racism and more to do with little school cricket, probably not helped by the cricket going to sky, but the biggest thing, the shear drag of other sports.
Football, particularly since the expansion of academy program, hoovers up masses of talent and places restrictions on what the kids can do and of course the money is huge. But also seeing other sports like rugby looking wider and again the money can be really good.
Its the reason West Indies have become piss poor at cricket, other sports just have a much bigger upside.
Gone are the days where if you show talent you tinker at different sports in the winter and summer. My mates kid is in a top tier football academy, its a year round thing.
Cricket is piss poor money for a standard county player. You have to get through that, establish yourself as a really good one day player, then you can earn.
The Caribbean has switched to Basketball rather than cricket. It requires less space, less equipment, and if you are good enough it pays as well as football does.
Cricket until IPL couldn't compete and it still can't locally.
That switch happened because West Indies cricket was sold to satellite and terrestrial television made up the gaps showing American basketball.
On British cricket versus football, Ian Botham was talking about this back in the 80s and 90s. It used to be that footballers and cricketers earned about the same, but that changed. Cricket at the very top level pays very well but county cricket is not competitive with even lower league football.
Noted @kinabalu's thoughtful comment. Not just quoting the whole thing, but this, surely is the nub of it. 'Or should it be inclusion unless a compelling case for exclusion can be made?'
A conviction for rape would, I should think, be a compelling etc, until the inevitable hard case/miscarriage of justice comes along, but surely as a society we should be grown-up enough to realise that, with the best will in world, sometimes errors are made and, given that hard cases make bad law, Mr K is right.
I know someone who is doing 5 tests a day just because someone they saw someone a week ago who now has Omicron. If that type of behaviour is being repeated then no wonder there are supply problems for tests.
Yesterday in SA they did 34,753 tests some of which had to be paid for by the person taking the test.
In the UK we did 1,476,216 tests all of which were free.
And our testing system is a "shambles"
Only an hour or so ago I heard on the radio a medic lauding the SA testing system because of how many PCR tests they do. Yet we in the UK do far more PCR tests than SA even if it is a smaller percentage of the total due to the vast number of LFTs. Some people just hate this country without any reason.
When you laud the efforts of country X you don't silently attack country Y.
So unless you've missed something in your reporting where the medic complained about the UK you seem to have leapt to a completely invalid conclusion.
It was in the context of "what has gone wrong with testing?" Saying SA does more PCR tests was only true as a fraction of the total testing, in reality the UK does over 20 times as many PCR tests per capita each day, and it is a smaller fraction of the total testing because we do a huge number of LFTs as well. It was a misleading statement, made by the sort of person who should know better.
There's a certain class of liberal that loathes this nation and everything about it.
Can you name any in particular?
Almost anyone on Twitter that Scott retweets here.
We can add "particular" to the list of words you don't understand.
I understand the word, I just want to reply however I choose and not play your game. There are certain particular people he retweets frequently.
If you want a specific name then https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy seems a prime example that he's constantly retweeting here that meets the description.
She seems to be a fan of the BBC and the NHS. Next.
And that stops you from loathing this country? Oookay.
There's a certain class of liberal that loathes this nation and everything about it.
Extraordinary claims are very easily undermined, which I think you are now on the verge of learning. So now we enter the stage of the argument where you choose between furiously rowing back, shifting the goalposts, or doubling down when you know you were wrong. You almost always go for option 3.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
Travel from the UK to France
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU
Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Exactly. They aren't treating us differently. They're applying the 3rd country rules which our government demanded be imposed upon us.
What’s the warning
Be careful what you wish for - it may become true.
I don't understand the complaints. What did they think "3rd country" meant? This is what they demanded and they've succeeded in being treated thus.
Just wait until next week when the usual suspects try and blame the French for our lack of Border Control Posts, staff or computers.
Except the rights of British citizens with legal residency in the EU that pre-dates Brexit have their rights protected by treaty.
I think this is just Macron being a twat again, assuming the allegation is true.
Blocking the UK, when Belgium had had case rates twice as high as our peak at that point for weeks was the action of a kneejerking numpty.
It’s totally Macron being a twat.
But it’s the resounding silence from the Remoaners that amuses
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Because it’s a breach of the Withdrawal Treaty in the same way that they got very excited about the administrative procedures on settled status.
It is - in the same way that other border closures were breaches of other treaties like Schengen. But its a pandemic - temporary breaches are permitted.
Again, we are being treated as we demanded - as a 3rd country. They had to arbitrate on which exceptions to their medically induced ban would exist and they have tret us like the rest of the world not Europe. At our request.
You and others complaining demonstrates English exceptionalism at its finest. That "treat us like a 3rd country" actually meant "we don't want to be European but you will do what we bally well say because we are English and that means we get to make all the rules".
Yes, there were plenty on here saying "ban all travel". Now the French are trying it (which personally I think is a waste of time) the same posters are trying to make a point of it.
Its totally a waste of time - they already have Omicron so they're as fucked as their neighbours.
But - and its a very bit but - it is an established principle that countries have the absolute right in an emergency to change processes even if written into treaty. This was the point being made last March "THEY CAN'T CLOSE THEIR BORDERS COS SCHENGEN" and yet they did close their borders and we didn't.
How a nation chooses to draw up its pandemic emergency powers is up to that nation. Some of our red list country bans have made no sense at all, yet here we are shouting at the French for doing the same. Instead of an arbitrary red list they have done an arbitrary EU list. We aren't EU, we demanded not to be EU and be tret like ROW and now we're Outraged that we're seen as not EU and as ROW.
What the frack is wrong with some people? This is what you wanted!
Closing to transit is unusual
I suspect the fear is that the person will be able to transit into XYZ at the border so leaves France with the problem.
It also strikes me as typical French point scoring.
It’s entirely driven by domestic politics. This effects very few people. (Fly if you need to go to your other home).
But the hypocrisy is deafening
Probably impacts a fair few people as a lot of people will be travelling by car to see all their families at this time of year.
As a point of political point scoring the timing couldn't be better / worse for impacting Brits.
France has the right to ban those people. The issue is with the few who have residency in another EU country and protected status under the Withdrawal Treaty
We have had many cruises across the four corners of the world and used to think the odd outbreak of norovirus was a problem but never imagined covid would cause such mayhem in the cruise industry
We are so grateful we have travelled so much prior to covid with our last cruise in September 2019 from Southampton to Newfoundland, Canada, New England and New York returning to Southampton absolutely fabulous
Every cruise line has been affected by the current surge in Covid-19 cases due to the omicron variant. The lion’s share of the 86 cruise ships under watch belong to the largest three cruise operators: Carnival operates 32, Royal Caribbean operates 25 and Norwegian Cruise Line operates 15. All four ships operated by Disney Cruise Line are also on yellow, according to the CDC website.
Despite tight industrywide protocols — including pre-departure Covid testing as well as vaccine mandates — it is not uncommon for ship passengers or crew to test positive for the illness.
Cruise ships are allowed to relax mask use onboard if at least 95% of passengers and 95% of crew are fully vaccinated or in specific areas accessible only to fully vaccinated passengers. “However, CDC continues to advise cruise ship operators to require masks indoors and in crowded outdoor areas regardless of vaccination status due to the increased transmissibility of variants of concern,” said Reed.
Why 95% and not 100? I realise these may be medical exemptions. Do they outline their reasoning?
In early December, I went on a 13 day cruise on Cunard's Queen Elizabeth from Southampton to the Canaries. -All passengers had to prove they were double vaccinated. 100%. Same with crew. -Each passenger was tested as they arrived at the terminal and had a nerve-wracking wait in the terminal until they were declared negative and could board. Some tested positive and they and their companions were turned away. - On board, mask wearing except on open deck and your cabins was obligatory. If you were exempt from mask wearing, you couldn't join the cruise. We were told that if you didn't follow this rule, you would be put off at the next port of call to travel home at your own expense. If you didn't sign acceptance of this, you couldn't join the cruise. - You couldn't serve yourself food in the buffet. Staff in gloves and masks served up what you pointed at. - We were tested onboard in order to go ashore at our various stops. We were also tested before disembarking at Southampton. - - We then had to self-isolate at home until we got the all clear on a day 2 PCR test.
In summary, it wasn't a particularly enjoyable trip but we felt much safer than being in London. We left before Omicron struck and the rules were rigidly enforced.
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
Yes she did but that is not an acceptable position in the new Scotland. As one of the last serious taxpayers left in the country this is unfortunate.
Gay people used to face this same kind of "moral panic" cr*p. Giving trans people rights does not take rights away from women any more than taking giving gay people rights took them away from straight people.
That is just bollox Bev, pardon the pun. Giving men the rights to be in women's places where they have to undress etc is just totally wrong given that 90% of them still have their block and tackle and some are real bad un's. You cannot trample the majority's rights on the whim of a very small minority who want extra rights at the expense of the majority.
I think that focuses on the central point Malcolm. The problem with the Scottish legislation in particular is that it gives you the right to identify and be treated as a woman when merely being committed to the path before any drugs, surgery etc have been applied and when they are still biologically operative men.
I have no problem at all in such people wanting to dress, name themselves and live as a woman if that is their preference. Good luck to them. I do have a problem at the edge cases, such as prisons, if the person concerned has not gone past the stage of being able to penetrate anyone with their penis. A reasonably simple recalibration on this could take an awful lot of heat out of the debate.
What's so magic about penises when it comes to penetration?
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
As far as I understand it, I think she meant that there are only two sexes.
I have no idea what she meant and I am not getting into a dull and sterile debate.
Just some advice Charles, you don't have to reply
All the best.
I have the right to reply as I see fit. As, of course do you.
Of course you do mate, I also have a right to call you boring - as I am sure you think the same for me. Take care.
I try not to insult people. You have been throwing abuse my way for months.
You've insulted me many times, I am very happy to bury the hatchet here but you did say you were going to ignore my posting, so I am surprised that you keep responding.
Rather than moan about what is in fact an extremely efficient mass testing facility I think that we should be asking whether our huge commitment to this is a good use of scarce resources.
As a means of identifying those infected and requiring them to self isolate it just doesn't seem to have worked. Countries with much less testing seem to manage to control their R rate at least as well as the UK, better in many cases. As a means of identifying how much Covid is about it seems a bit voodoo pollish and it may be that a smaller more balanced sample would be at least as useful.
I agree with that to an extent, but some countries that test less have a higher hospitalisation per case rate than the UK, which suggests that they are missing a lot of asymptomatic and minor cases, so perhaps their success is not quite as good as it appears, or alternately we aren't doing as badly as we think.
In the end when this is really over we will be able to count the cost and figure out who did well and who did badly. I'm fairly sure the UK will not stand out from the pack in the end. Many countries that looked to be doing better than the UK in 2020 have now caught up or overtaken us, and the pandemic isn't over yet.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
Mr. Battery, you're correct. A biopsychology textbook I read (The Psychology Of Gender And Sexuality: An Introduction) indicated fewer than 60, I think, instances of intersex people in Europe and North America in the course of a century.
NB intersex here means with significant male and female physicality, such as an ovary on one side and a testicle on the other. It does not refer to more common, and minor, chromosomal conditions such as being XXY or XYY.
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
Yes she did but that is not an acceptable position in the new Scotland. As one of the last serious taxpayers left in the country this is unfortunate.
Gay people used to face this same kind of "moral panic" cr*p. Giving trans people rights does not take rights away from women any more than taking giving gay people rights took them away from straight people.
That is just bollox Bev, pardon the pun. Giving men the rights to be in women's places where they have to undress etc is just totally wrong given that 90% of them still have their block and tackle and some are real bad un's. You cannot trample the majority's rights on the whim of a very small minority who want extra rights at the expense of the majority.
I think that focuses on the central point Malcolm. The problem with the Scottish legislation in particular is that it gives you the right to identify and be treated as a woman when merely being committed to the path before any drugs, surgery etc have been applied and when they are still biologically operative men.
I have no problem at all in such people wanting to dress, name themselves and live as a woman if that is their preference. Good luck to them. I do have a problem at the edge cases, such as prisons, if the person concerned has not gone past the stage of being able to penetrate anyone with their penis. A reasonably simple recalibration on this could take an awful lot of heat out of the debate.
What's so magic about penises when it comes to penetration?
HMG will follow pb's advice (since taken up elsewhere) and, like the American CDC, reduce isolation to five days. This will instantly cut demand for testing, and also ease pressure on services and the wider economy by reducing staff shortages.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
I know zero about cricket, but even I have heard the ECB have big issues with racism and the English team are hopeless.
I suspect those two things are linked in some way.
As you say you don't know anything about cricket. England team is the premier one day team in the world and lots of diversity within that team.
I think the only place with racism issues was Yorkshire and that's because YCCC seems to follow the Yorkshire approach that if you haven't lived in Yorkshire since at least Viking times (and have the family tree to back it up) you aren't a true Yorkshireman.
There is an wider issue with a lack of particularly black kids coming through. But that is less to do with racism and more to do with little school cricket, probably not helped by the cricket going to sky, but the biggest thing, the shear drag of other sports.
Football, particularly since the expansion of academy program, hoovers up masses of talent and places restrictions on what the kids can do and of course the money is huge. But also seeing other sports like rugby looking wider and again the money can be really good.
Its the reason West Indies have become piss poor at cricket, other sports just have a much bigger upside.
Gone are the days where if you show talent you tinker at different sports in the winter and summer. My mates kid is in a top tier football academy, its a year round thing.
Cricket is piss poor money for a standard county player. You have to get through that, establish yourself as a really good one day player, then you can earn.
The Caribbean has switched to Basketball rather than cricket. It requires less space, less equipment, and if you are good enough it pays as well as football does.
Cricket until IPL couldn't compete and it still can't locally.
That switch happened because West Indies cricket was sold to satellite and terrestrial television made up the gaps showing American basketball.
On British cricket versus football, Ian Botham was talking about this back in the 80s and 90s. It used to be that footballers and cricketers earned about the same, but that changed. Cricket at the very top level pays very well but county cricket is not competitive with even lower league football.
Its not just cricket, so many sports struggle as they are incredibly top heavy and a number of core sports pay orders of magnitude to wider base. I saw an interesting video following tennis player Liam Broady, ranked about 100-150 in the world and he basically make very little money after all costs. He said winning a Wimbledon first round match enables him to pay for his strength and conditioning coach for the year.
What is going on with JK Rowling? This issue seems to have totally passed me by.
She says chicks with dicks aren't chicks.
That's what it boils down to.
Did she actually say that? I have zero interest in TERF wars, but my impression was that she said that trans rights couldn’t be at the expense of women’s rights
Yes she did but that is not an acceptable position in the new Scotland. As one of the last serious taxpayers left in the country this is unfortunate.
Gay people used to face this same kind of "moral panic" cr*p. Giving trans people rights does not take rights away from women any more than taking giving gay people rights took them away from straight people.
Well done in confirming my point that most trans "supporters" don't have a first clue about what the actual issue is.
A lot of women need safe women only / man free spaces because of past issues / trauma they have experienced.
And by "women only / man free" its biological sex not gender that is the issue. Something the pro-trans outraged don't seem to get.
"Biological sex"... so Buck Angel should be using female spaces because he was female at birth?
And the late April Ashley MBE should be forced into the Gents?
Had to google who Buck Angel is. So to answer your question about his use of female spaces - possibly, if relevant. What do I mean? Women's refuges exist to provide sanctuary to women who have been assaulted and raped by men. As Buck remains biologically female its possible to be beaten and raped by men - as it was for my offspring's ex BFs.
We can debate edge cases all you like, this is about principle. I think we can provide absolute support to people who transition without giving them the kind of absolutist pass that we wouldn't give to people who haven't transitioned their gender.
I don't see the scale of this "debate" as it is presented. Abusey rapey men do not need to pretend to be women to gain access to women who they want to attack. They can do that anyway. The odd case here and there doesn't prove an argument either way.
Again, I am coming at this both as a member of the LBGTQ community and as the father of a genderfluid offspring who dates trans men. I am not what you could call transphobic even if your response to my point was trying to edge me towards that camp.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
Ghislaine Maxwell's mistake, (from her point of view, not everyone else's), was not staying in a country like France which doesn't extradite nationals to the United States. She must have been very complacent to actually choose to reside in the United States itself, and not even Canada or the UK.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
Good morning pb, On the subject of Sandy's bins, another report from the real world. A very Christmassy Christmas indeed in the Cookson household. My parents stayed Christmas even and Christmas day - which they couldn't do last year; 14 of us for Christmas dinner (including my new infant nephew, hurray) - which we obviously couldn't do last year; and a few very pleasant days of post-Christmas torpor, which we could do last year but the attraction of which was rather marred by the fat that it was all we could do.* Actually, we have been out and about: a climbing wall with the daughters on the 28th, and the Sandcastle at Blackpool** yesterday, followed by the illuminations. Off for a walk with some friends from school today, and two - two! - parties planned tomorrow night. (I don't expect to enjoy either of them outrageously, but will take pleasure that such things are possible.) Then we'll go out for a walk with six or seven other families from Sale on NYD. Throughout this there has been a pot on the stoev boiling up the remains of the turkey for soup. And as a perennial highlight of the period between Christmas and New Year, we have spent every evening around the telly watching World's Strongest Man***, ****. Lest I paint too rosy a picture I should also concede that Christmas day started with a row which started with my wife asking my youngest daughter slightly to the left to be in a photo and escalated within 30 seconds to youngest daughter screaming that her mother had ruined her Christmas Day. But she is a spitfire, that one (we're working on it) and it blew over quickly.
Anyway, the point of all this is that in the real world, we're nearly there. Covid is, by the scale of last year, an irritation. Other subjects compete for our attention; we can go hours, days even, barely considering it. It's a happy position to be in and does me a world of good to remind myself of it.
*actually, last year's days between Christmas and New Year were rather fine too because of the snow, but still. **I love Blackpool more every time I go. In contrast to normal times, throughout the pandemic it has felt more like the real world than anywhere else. You still get angry signs from the council about covid, but what you mostly get is people trying to enjoy themselves or sell things to people trying to enjoy themselves. It has been the least fearful place in the country. ***the outcome of which I already know thanks to some idiot football commentator during the euros, but it isn't taking away from the pleasure of it. ****I think if there was one sport I would love to excel at above all others it would be strongman. Not that I have ever put the slightest effort into bringing this about, I just think it would be fun to be really strong.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
Travel from the UK to France
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU
Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Exactly. They aren't treating us differently. They're applying the 3rd country rules which our government demanded be imposed upon us.
What’s the warning
Be careful what you wish for - it may become true.
I don't understand the complaints. What did they think "3rd country" meant? This is what they demanded and they've succeeded in being treated thus.
Just wait until next week when the usual suspects try and blame the French for our lack of Border Control Posts, staff or computers.
Except the rights of British citizens with legal residency in the EU that pre-dates Brexit have their rights protected by treaty.
I think this is just Macron being a twat again, assuming the allegation is true.
Blocking the UK, when Belgium had had case rates twice as high as our peak at that point for weeks was the action of a kneejerking numpty.
It’s totally Macron being a twat.
But it’s the resounding silence from the Remoaners that amuses
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Because it’s a breach of the Withdrawal Treaty in the same way that they got very excited about the administrative procedures on settled status.
It is - in the same way that other border closures were breaches of other treaties like Schengen. But its a pandemic - temporary breaches are permitted.
Again, we are being treated as we demanded - as a 3rd country. They had to arbitrate on which exceptions to their medically induced ban would exist and they have tret us like the rest of the world not Europe. At our request.
You and others complaining demonstrates English exceptionalism at its finest. That "treat us like a 3rd country" actually meant "we don't want to be European but you will do what we bally well say because we are English and that means we get to make all the rules".
Yes, there were plenty on here saying "ban all travel". Now the French are trying it (which personally I think is a waste of time) the same posters are trying to make a point of it.
Its totally a waste of time - they already have Omicron so they're as fucked as their neighbours.
But - and its a very bit but - it is an established principle that countries have the absolute right in an emergency to change processes even if written into treaty. This was the point being made last March "THEY CAN'T CLOSE THEIR BORDERS COS SCHENGEN" and yet they did close their borders and we didn't.
How a nation chooses to draw up its pandemic emergency powers is up to that nation. Some of our red list country bans have made no sense at all, yet here we are shouting at the French for doing the same. Instead of an arbitrary red list they have done an arbitrary EU list. We aren't EU, we demanded not to be EU and be tret like ROW and now we're Outraged that we're seen as not EU and as ROW.
What the frack is wrong with some people? This is what you wanted!
Closing to transit is unusual
I suspect the fear is that the person will be able to transit into XYZ at the border so leaves France with the problem.
It also strikes me as typical French point scoring.
It’s entirely driven by domestic politics. This effects very few people. (Fly if you need to go to your other home).
But the hypocrisy is deafening
Probably impacts a fair few people as a lot of people will be travelling by car to see all their families at this time of year.
As a point of political point scoring the timing couldn't be better / worse for impacting Brits.
France has the right to ban those people. The issue is with the few who have residency in another EU country and protected status under the Withdrawal Treaty
You do understand the absolute right of sovereign states to suspend various things a times of national emergency?
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
Guys, guys, look at us. Arguing. Bickering. It didn’t used to be like this.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
Charles has been rude and abusive to me in the past, so have plenty of others here. They know who they are.
There are plenty of people who I strongly disagree with who don't act in this way. This has nothing to do with politics but instead is about in my mind, right vs wrong. I hate bullies, I hate bullying.
We saw this the other day with the jump onto HYUFD just because he expressed a point of view. That was bullying.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
You bullied somebody off this website. Don't you dare try and call me a bully.
We have had many cruises across the four corners of the world and used to think the odd outbreak of norovirus was a problem but never imagined covid would cause such mayhem in the cruise industry
We are so grateful we have travelled so much prior to covid with our last cruise in September 2019 from Southampton to Newfoundland, Canada, New England and New York returning to Southampton absolutely fabulous
Every cruise line has been affected by the current surge in Covid-19 cases due to the omicron variant. The lion’s share of the 86 cruise ships under watch belong to the largest three cruise operators: Carnival operates 32, Royal Caribbean operates 25 and Norwegian Cruise Line operates 15. All four ships operated by Disney Cruise Line are also on yellow, according to the CDC website.
Despite tight industrywide protocols — including pre-departure Covid testing as well as vaccine mandates — it is not uncommon for ship passengers or crew to test positive for the illness.
Cruise ships are allowed to relax mask use onboard if at least 95% of passengers and 95% of crew are fully vaccinated or in specific areas accessible only to fully vaccinated passengers. “However, CDC continues to advise cruise ship operators to require masks indoors and in crowded outdoor areas regardless of vaccination status due to the increased transmissibility of variants of concern,” said Reed.
Why 95% and not 100? I realise these may be medical exemptions. Do they outline their reasoning?
In early December, I went on a 13 day cruise on Cunard's Queen Elizabeth from Southampton to the Canaries. -All passengers had to prove they were double vaccinated. 100%. Same with crew. -Each passenger was tested as they arrived at the terminal and had a nerve-wracking wait in the terminal until they were declared negative and could board. Some tested positive and they and their companions were turned away. - On board, mask wearing except on open deck and your cabins was obligatory. If you were exempt from mask wearing, you couldn't join the cruise. We were told that if you didn't follow this rule, you would be put off at the next port of call to travel home at your own expense. If you didn't sign acceptance of this, you couldn't join the cruise. - You couldn't serve yourself food in the buffet. Staff in gloves and masks served up what you pointed at. - We were tested onboard in order to go ashore at our various stops. We were also tested before disembarking at Southampton. - - We then had to self-isolate at home until we got the all clear on a day 2 PCR test.
In summary, it wasn't a particularly enjoyable trip but we felt much safer than being in London. We left before Omicron struck and the rules were rigidly enforced.
Ghislaine Maxwell's mistake, (from her point of view, not everyone else's), was not staying in a country like France which doesn't extradite nationals to the United States. She must have been very complacent to actually choose to reside in the United States itself, and not even Canada or the UK.
The most bizarre thing about this trial was her sketching the court artist. So we had a court artist Picture of Maxwell sketching the court artist.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
Guys, guys, look at us. Arguing. Bickering. It didn’t used to be like this.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
Guys, guys, look at us. Arguing. Bickering. It didn’t used to be like this.
Agreed. Everybody breathe...
It's not about bickering.
I am being accused of being abusive and being a bully. By a bully, somebody who literally bullied somebody else off this website.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
You bullied somebody off this website. Don't you dare try and call me a bully.
I did no such thing.
Someone left the website because they didn't like my opinion, politely expressed. That is not bullying. If I was bullying I'd expect to be rightly banned, but politely expressing your own opinion is never bullying even if others don't like that opinion.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to pick brains on here regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. My questions are:
People on here have talked about her revealing names as part of a plea bargain, but as the Maxwell family saying they are challenging the verdict, wouldn't revealing names be tantamount to accepting the guilty verdict?
What are the chances of the Maxwells repeatedly challenging on points of law until the verdict is overturned?
Where is the Maxwell family getting the money from for this extensive and expensive legal defence?
I would genuinely welcome any thoughts on these matters.
Too late for a plea bargain which as the name suggests involves pleading guilty and is a deal with the prosecution who, at least in English law, are now out of the picture. Sentencing is for the judge. The suggestion that she can spill beans at this stage to reduce her sentence verges on conspiracy theory, but some conspiracy theories are true.
Can't see an appeal succeeding certainly not on all counts. No idea about finances, she may have some Epstein money left and has a rich husband
Her brothers were also acquitted of a remarkably serious fraud committed by their late father on a pension fund.
I have no knowledge of American criminal procedure but in this country when the Crown closes its case the defence can plead no case to answer and if there is insufficient evidence in law to allow a safe conviction, taken at its very highest, then the case is taken away from the Jury and dismissed. If the Crown get past that point then the defence has a difficult choice to make: does the accused give evidence or not.
Donald Findlay QC, who has almost certainly done more murder cases for the defence than anyone else in the world given the way our system operates, is famous for not letting his clients give evidence, recognising the many risks. But in sex crimes a person whose case has got past the no case to answer point is taking a very large risk and in my limited experience accused do give evidence in rape cases.
Not having GH give evidence was a brave call and may well form the basis of an appeal if it is contended that she was not in a fit state to give evidence because of her mental health or the conditions of her incarceration. Whether that appeal is successful or not is a different matter.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
You bullied somebody off this website. Don't you dare try and call me a bully.
I did no such thing.
Someone left the website because they didn't like my opinion, politely expressed. That is not bullying. If I was bullying I'd expect to be rightly banned, but politely expressing your own opinion is never bullying even if others don't like that opinion.
You bullied them off here. We know what you did.
Don't call me a bully ever again.
I have been nothing but respectful to you since you asked me to be and you've just thrown it back in my face at every junction. That's it, line crossed.
Looks like London well past peak. NW and Midlands now.
"Three in 10 local authority areas in the UK are recording their highest rate of new Covid cases since mass testing began in summer 2020, new analysis shows.
The areas include around three-quarters of authorities in north-west England, nearly two-thirds in the West Midlands and almost half in the East Midlands.
But no London boroughs are on the list, while only a tiny number of areas in the south-east and eastern England are now at record levels, suggesting the latest surge in cases may have peaked in these parts of the country.
In a similar survey in the week before Christmas, two-thirds of local authorities in London were reporting record case rates."
"The EU and the US reached a Halloween agreement to remove tariffs on a quota of steel and aluminium imported from the bloc into the US from 1 January, but tariffs will remain on all UK steel and aluminium exports after government talks failed to secure a matching breakthrough."
AIUI remaining in place because Mr Biden has chosen to try and prevent the UK being able to use a Treaty clause which is expressly in the EU-UK Treaty to protect the long-term stability of UK society. Does he really think it is possible to walk away form that? Would the USA?
By making the link he ensures that companies such as Harley Davidson will continue to have balancing sanctions applied to them, and that further balancing tariffs etc will be applied, as he has chosen to deadlock the conversation.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
You bullied somebody off this website. Don't you dare try and call me a bully.
I did no such thing.
Someone left the website because they didn't like my opinion, politely expressed. That is not bullying. If I was bullying I'd expect to be rightly banned, but politely expressing your own opinion is never bullying even if others don't like that opinion.
They asked you to stop engaging with them, which you ignored. So they left.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
Travel from the UK to France
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU
Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Exactly. They aren't treating us differently. They're applying the 3rd country rules which our government demanded be imposed upon us.
What’s the warning
Be careful what you wish for - it may become true.
I don't understand the complaints. What did they think "3rd country" meant? This is what they demanded and they've succeeded in being treated thus.
Just wait until next week when the usual suspects try and blame the French for our lack of Border Control Posts, staff or computers.
Except the rights of British citizens with legal residency in the EU that pre-dates Brexit have their rights protected by treaty.
I think this is just Macron being a twat again, assuming the allegation is true.
Blocking the UK, when Belgium had had case rates twice as high as our peak at that point for weeks was the action of a kneejerking numpty.
It’s totally Macron being a twat.
But it’s the resounding silence from the Remoaners that amuses
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Because it’s a breach of the Withdrawal Treaty in the same way that they got very excited about the administrative procedures on settled status.
It is - in the same way that other border closures were breaches of other treaties like Schengen. But its a pandemic - temporary breaches are permitted.
Again, we are being treated as we demanded - as a 3rd country. They had to arbitrate on which exceptions to their medically induced ban would exist and they have tret us like the rest of the world not Europe. At our request.
You and others complaining demonstrates English exceptionalism at its finest. That "treat us like a 3rd country" actually meant "we don't want to be European but you will do what we bally well say because we are English and that means we get to make all the rules".
The point this guy makes is that this type of aggravating rule gets sorted out with a phone call to the EU Commission who then tell the French to fix the problem. It depends on a good working relationship where the parties are doing favours for each other. But it also doesn't happen because asking the EU for favours doesn't fit with the Brexiteer idea of absolute sovereignty.
We have had many cruises across the four corners of the world and used to think the odd outbreak of norovirus was a problem but never imagined covid would cause such mayhem in the cruise industry
We are so grateful we have travelled so much prior to covid with our last cruise in September 2019 from Southampton to Newfoundland, Canada, New England and New York returning to Southampton absolutely fabulous
Every cruise line has been affected by the current surge in Covid-19 cases due to the omicron variant. The lion’s share of the 86 cruise ships under watch belong to the largest three cruise operators: Carnival operates 32, Royal Caribbean operates 25 and Norwegian Cruise Line operates 15. All four ships operated by Disney Cruise Line are also on yellow, according to the CDC website.
Despite tight industrywide protocols — including pre-departure Covid testing as well as vaccine mandates — it is not uncommon for ship passengers or crew to test positive for the illness.
Cruise ships are allowed to relax mask use onboard if at least 95% of passengers and 95% of crew are fully vaccinated or in specific areas accessible only to fully vaccinated passengers. “However, CDC continues to advise cruise ship operators to require masks indoors and in crowded outdoor areas regardless of vaccination status due to the increased transmissibility of variants of concern,” said Reed.
Why 95% and not 100? I realise these may be medical exemptions. Do they outline their reasoning?
In early December, I went on a 13 day cruise on Cunard's Queen Elizabeth from Southampton to the Canaries. -All passengers had to prove they were double vaccinated. 100%. Same with crew. -Each passenger was tested as they arrived at the terminal and had a nerve-wracking wait in the terminal until they were declared negative and could board. Some tested positive and they and their companions were turned away. - On board, mask wearing except on open deck and your cabins was obligatory. If you were exempt from mask wearing, you couldn't join the cruise. We were told that if you didn't follow this rule, you would be put off at the next port of call to travel home at your own expense. If you didn't sign acceptance of this, you couldn't join the cruise. - You couldn't serve yourself food in the buffet. Staff in gloves and masks served up what you pointed at. - We were tested onboard in order to go ashore at our various stops. We were also tested before disembarking at Southampton. - - We then had to self-isolate at home until we got the all clear on a day 2 PCR test.
In summary, it wasn't a particularly enjoyable trip but we felt much safer than being in London. We left before Omicron struck and the rules were rigidly enforced.
That sounds like hell.
But safe hell. I wouldn't do it again.
It is a good example of what an ultra-safe world would be like. Hell.
I know I am overly sensitive at times, I know I have some problems and have been quite open about those. But what I will not tolerate is being called a bully or abusive by those that are abusive, aggressive and nasty to others.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to pick brains on here regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. My questions are:
People on here have talked about her revealing names as part of a plea bargain, but as the Maxwell family saying they are challenging the verdict, wouldn't revealing names be tantamount to accepting the guilty verdict?
What are the chances of the Maxwells repeatedly challenging on points of law until the verdict is overturned?
Where is the Maxwell family getting the money from for this extensive and expensive legal defence?
I would genuinely welcome any thoughts on these matters.
Too late for a plea bargain which as the name suggests involves pleading guilty and is a deal with the prosecution who, at least in English law, are now out of the picture. Sentencing is for the judge. The suggestion that she can spill beans at this stage to reduce her sentence verges on conspiracy theory, but some conspiracy theories are true.
Can't see an appeal succeeding certainly not on all counts. No idea about finances, she may have some Epstein money left and has a rich husband
Her brothers were also acquitted of a remarkably serious fraud committed by their late father on a pension fund.
I have no knowledge of American criminal procedure but in this country when the Crown closes its case the defence can plead no case to answer and if there is insufficient evidence in law to allow a safe conviction, taken at its very highest, then the case is taken away from the Jury and dismissed. If the Crown get past that point then the defence has a difficult choice to make: does the accused give evidence or not.
Donald Findlay QC, who has almost certainly done more murder cases for the defence than anyone else in the world given the way our system operates, is famous for not letting his clients give evidence, recognising the many risks. But in sex crimes a person whose case has got past the no case to answer point is taking a very large risk and in my limited experience accused do give evidence in rape cases.
Not having GH give evidence was a brave call and may well form the basis of an appeal if it is contended that she was not in a fit state to give evidence because of her mental health or the conditions of her incarceration. Whether that appeal is successful or not is a different matter.
Interesting you make the point about her incarceration conditions given some of the Maxwell clan have already been interviewed, by quite a favourable media, complaining about how she has been held.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
You bullied somebody off this website. Don't you dare try and call me a bully.
I did no such thing.
Someone left the website because they didn't like my opinion, politely expressed. That is not bullying. If I was bullying I'd expect to be rightly banned, but politely expressing your own opinion is never bullying even if others don't like that opinion.
You bullied them off here. We know what you did.
Don't call me a bully ever again.
I have been nothing but respectful to you since you asked me to be and you've just thrown it back in my face at every junction. That's it, line crossed.
Calm down. I never called you a bully, though you're calling me one. If I called you a bully please quote where I said that, because I quite frankly did not. You're inventing things I never said. The text is there for the record, I never said that.
Nor did I bully anyone, the person concerned never accused me of bullying him either. He expressed distaste for my opinions, that's his prerogative. If someone wants to get away from opinions they dislike and go to a "safe space" away from opinions they don't like they're free to do so but expressing your own opinion is not bullying.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
You bullied somebody off this website. Don't you dare try and call me a bully.
I did no such thing.
Someone left the website because they didn't like my opinion, politely expressed. That is not bullying. If I was bullying I'd expect to be rightly banned, but politely expressing your own opinion is never bullying even if others don't like that opinion.
They asked you to stop engaging with them, which you ignored. So they left.
It’s a pity this forum doesn’t have a block function for such instances.
Looks like London well past peak. NW and Midlands now.
"Three in 10 local authority areas in the UK are recording their highest rate of new Covid cases since mass testing began in summer 2020, new analysis shows.
The areas include around three-quarters of authorities in north-west England, nearly two-thirds in the West Midlands and almost half in the East Midlands.
But no London boroughs are on the list, while only a tiny number of areas in the south-east and eastern England are now at record levels, suggesting the latest surge in cases may have peaked in these parts of the country.
In a similar survey in the week before Christmas, two-thirds of local authorities in London were reporting record case rates."
From Guardian live blog.
PS. My bins were collected yesterday.
Omicron is so quick we could be through this in 2-3 weeks.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
Travel from the UK to France
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU
Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Exactly. They aren't treating us differently. They're applying the 3rd country rules which our government demanded be imposed upon us.
What’s the warning
Be careful what you wish for - it may become true.
I don't understand the complaints. What did they think "3rd country" meant? This is what they demanded and they've succeeded in being treated thus.
Just wait until next week when the usual suspects try and blame the French for our lack of Border Control Posts, staff or computers.
Except the rights of British citizens with legal residency in the EU that pre-dates Brexit have their rights protected by treaty.
I think this is just Macron being a twat again, assuming the allegation is true.
Blocking the UK, when Belgium had had case rates twice as high as our peak at that point for weeks was the action of a kneejerking numpty.
It’s totally Macron being a twat.
But it’s the resounding silence from the Remoaners that amuses
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Because it’s a breach of the Withdrawal Treaty in the same way that they got very excited about the administrative procedures on settled status.
It is - in the same way that other border closures were breaches of other treaties like Schengen. But its a pandemic - temporary breaches are permitted.
Again, we are being treated as we demanded - as a 3rd country. They had to arbitrate on which exceptions to their medically induced ban would exist and they have tret us like the rest of the world not Europe. At our request.
You and others complaining demonstrates English exceptionalism at its finest. That "treat us like a 3rd country" actually meant "we don't want to be European but you will do what we bally well say because we are English and that means we get to make all the rules".
Yes, there were plenty on here saying "ban all travel". Now the French are trying it (which personally I think is a waste of time) the same posters are trying to make a point of it.
Its totally a waste of time - they already have Omicron so they're as fucked as their neighbours.
But - and its a very bit but - it is an established principle that countries have the absolute right in an emergency to change processes even if written into treaty. This was the point being made last March "THEY CAN'T CLOSE THEIR BORDERS COS SCHENGEN" and yet they did close their borders and we didn't.
How a nation chooses to draw up its pandemic emergency powers is up to that nation. Some of our red list country bans have made no sense at all, yet here we are shouting at the French for doing the same. Instead of an arbitrary red list they have done an arbitrary EU list. We aren't EU, we demanded not to be EU and be tret like ROW and now we're Outraged that we're seen as not EU and as ROW.
What the frack is wrong with some people? This is what you wanted!
Closing to transit is unusual
I suspect the fear is that the person will be able to transit into XYZ at the border so leaves France with the problem.
It also strikes me as typical French point scoring.
It’s entirely driven by domestic politics. This effects very few people. (Fly if you need to go to your other home).
But the hypocrisy is deafening
Probably impacts a fair few people as a lot of people will be travelling by car to see all their families at this time of year.
As a point of political point scoring the timing couldn't be better / worse for impacting Brits.
France has the right to ban those people. The issue is with the few who have residency in another EU country and protected status under the Withdrawal Treaty
You do understand the absolute right of sovereign states to suspend various things a times of national emergency?
Presumably now that France has the highest single day count of any EU / UK country at any time, he's going to close France's border with itself.
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Missed this remaino-trope bit before.
No matter how hard you chisel away, Ms B (I think), the UK is not responsible for crazy decisions made by other countries.
I know zero about cricket, but even I have heard the ECB have big issues with racism and the English team are hopeless.
I suspect those two things are linked in some way.
As you say you don't know anything about cricket. England team is the premier one day team in the world and lots of diversity within that team.
I think the only place with racism issues was Yorkshire and that's because YCCC seems to follow the Yorkshire approach that if you haven't lived in Yorkshire since at least Viking times (and have the family tree to back it up) you aren't a true Yorkshireman.
There is an wider issue with a lack of particularly black kids coming through. But that is less to do with racism and more to do with little school cricket, probably not helped by the cricket going to sky, but the biggest thing, the shear drag of other sports.
Football, particularly since the expansion of academy program, hoovers up masses of talent and places restrictions on what the kids can do and of course the money is huge. But also seeing other sports like rugby looking wider and again the money can be really good.
Its the reason West Indies have become piss poor at cricket, other sports just have a much bigger upside.
Gone are the days where if you show talent you tinker at different sports in the winter and summer. My mates kid is in a top tier football academy, its a year round thing.
Cricket is piss poor money for a standard county player. You have to get through that, establish yourself as a really good one day player, then you can earn.
The Caribbean has switched to Basketball rather than cricket. It requires less space, less equipment, and if you are good enough it pays as well as football does.
Cricket until IPL couldn't compete and it still can't locally.
That switch happened because West Indies cricket was sold to satellite and terrestrial television made up the gaps showing American basketball.
On British cricket versus football, Ian Botham was talking about this back in the 80s and 90s. It used to be that footballers and cricketers earned about the same, but that changed. Cricket at the very top level pays very well but county cricket is not competitive with even lower league football.
Its not just cricket, so many sports struggle as they are incredibly top heavy and a number of core sports pay orders of magnitude to wider base. I saw an interesting video following tennis player Liam Broady, ranked about 100-150 in the world and he basically make very little money after all costs. He said winning a Wimbledon first round match enables him to pay for his strength and conditioning coach for the year.
When I started watcher lower league football I was surprised at the amount of money being paid to the players. Can't be related to the gate takings, although the bar at the place where I watch does quite well. Cricket, in our neck of the woods, as I've posted before, does quite well for local interest, but I'm as sure as I can be that only one or two players make any sort of living out of it. Lancashire League cricket, IIRC, used to pay it's high quality professional as a result of a hat being taken round at each game. Especially worthwhile if the professional had, that day, done something exceptional!
Looks like London well past peak. NW and Midlands now.
"Three in 10 local authority areas in the UK are recording their highest rate of new Covid cases since mass testing began in summer 2020, new analysis shows.
The areas include around three-quarters of authorities in north-west England, nearly two-thirds in the West Midlands and almost half in the East Midlands.
But no London boroughs are on the list, while only a tiny number of areas in the south-east and eastern England are now at record levels, suggesting the latest surge in cases may have peaked in these parts of the country.
In a similar survey in the week before Christmas, two-thirds of local authorities in London were reporting record case rates."
From Guardian live blog.
PS. My bins were collected yesterday.
Levitt used gompertz to predict a peak of 29th Dec for UK.
Looks like London well past peak. NW and Midlands now.
"Three in 10 local authority areas in the UK are recording their highest rate of new Covid cases since mass testing began in summer 2020, new analysis shows.
The areas include around three-quarters of authorities in north-west England, nearly two-thirds in the West Midlands and almost half in the East Midlands.
But no London boroughs are on the list, while only a tiny number of areas in the south-east and eastern England are now at record levels, suggesting the latest surge in cases may have peaked in these parts of the country.
In a similar survey in the week before Christmas, two-thirds of local authorities in London were reporting record case rates."
From Guardian live blog.
PS. My bins were collected yesterday.
No bins collected but, fortunately, as it was overflowing, the local bottle bank has been emptied.
I accept only limited responsibility for the six or so bins being full!
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
You bullied somebody off this website. Don't you dare try and call me a bully.
I did no such thing.
Someone left the website because they didn't like my opinion, politely expressed. That is not bullying. If I was bullying I'd expect to be rightly banned, but politely expressing your own opinion is never bullying even if others don't like that opinion.
You bullied them off here. We know what you did.
Don't call me a bully ever again.
I have been nothing but respectful to you since you asked me to be and you've just thrown it back in my face at every junction. That's it, line crossed.
Calm down. I never called you a bully, though you're calling me one. If I called you a bully please quote where I said that, because I quite frankly did not. You're inventing things I never said. The text is there for the record, I never said that.
Nor did I bully anyone, the person concerned never accused me of bullying him either. He expressed distaste for my opinions, that's his prerogative. If someone wants to get away from opinions they dislike and go to a "safe space" away from opinions they don't like they're free to do so but expressing your own opinion is not bullying.
It depends on the opinion and how frequently and in what tone it's expressed.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to pick brains on here regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. My questions are:
People on here have talked about her revealing names as part of a plea bargain, but as the Maxwell family saying they are challenging the verdict, wouldn't revealing names be tantamount to accepting the guilty verdict?
What are the chances of the Maxwells repeatedly challenging on points of law until the verdict is overturned?
Where is the Maxwell family getting the money from for this extensive and expensive legal defence?
I would genuinely welcome any thoughts on these matters.
Too late for a plea bargain which as the name suggests involves pleading guilty and is a deal with the prosecution who, at least in English law, are now out of the picture. Sentencing is for the judge. The suggestion that she can spill beans at this stage to reduce her sentence verges on conspiracy theory, but some conspiracy theories are true.
Can't see an appeal succeeding certainly not on all counts. No idea about finances, she may have some Epstein money left and has a rich husband
Her brothers were also acquitted of a remarkably serious fraud committed by their late father on a pension fund.
I have no knowledge of American criminal procedure but in this country when the Crown closes its case the defence can plead no case to answer and if there is insufficient evidence in law to allow a safe conviction, taken at its very highest, then the case is taken away from the Jury and dismissed. If the Crown get past that point then the defence has a difficult choice to make: does the accused give evidence or not.
Donald Findlay QC, who has almost certainly done more murder cases for the defence than anyone else in the world given the way our system operates, is famous for not letting his clients give evidence, recognising the many risks. But in sex crimes a person whose case has got past the no case to answer point is taking a very large risk and in my limited experience accused do give evidence in rape cases.
Not having GH give evidence was a brave call and may well form the basis of an appeal if it is contended that she was not in a fit state to give evidence because of her mental health or the conditions of her incarceration. Whether that appeal is successful or not is a different matter.
Interesting you make the point about her incarceration conditions given some of the Maxwell clan have already been interviewed, by quite a favourable media, complaining about how she has been held.
I was discussing the Ghislaine Maxwell case with my brother and pointed to the fact that her brothers were acquitted of fraud. He said financial fraud is usually very complex and few understand it, whereas people understand sex. He said she would be found guilty, I thought otherwise. I fear that wealthy and powerful people can keep appealing against a verdict until it is overturned.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to pick brains on here regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. My questions are:
People on here have talked about her revealing names as part of a plea bargain, but as the Maxwell family saying they are challenging the verdict, wouldn't revealing names be tantamount to accepting the guilty verdict?
What are the chances of the Maxwells repeatedly challenging on points of law until the verdict is overturned?
Where is the Maxwell family getting the money from for this extensive and expensive legal defence?
I would genuinely welcome any thoughts on these matters.
Too late for a plea bargain which as the name suggests involves pleading guilty and is a deal with the prosecution who, at least in English law, are now out of the picture. Sentencing is for the judge. The suggestion that she can spill beans at this stage to reduce her sentence verges on conspiracy theory, but some conspiracy theories are true.
Can't see an appeal succeeding certainly not on all counts. No idea about finances, she may have some Epstein money left and has a rich husband
Her brothers were also acquitted of a remarkably serious fraud committed by their late father on a pension fund.
I have no knowledge of American criminal procedure but in this country when the Crown closes its case the defence can plead no case to answer and if there is insufficient evidence in law to allow a safe conviction, taken at its very highest, then the case is taken away from the Jury and dismissed. If the Crown get past that point then the defence has a difficult choice to make: does the accused give evidence or not.
Donald Findlay QC, who has almost certainly done more murder cases for the defence than anyone else in the world given the way our system operates, is famous for not letting his clients give evidence, recognising the many risks. But in sex crimes a person whose case has got past the no case to answer point is taking a very large risk and in my limited experience accused do give evidence in rape cases.
Not having GH give evidence was a brave call and may well form the basis of an appeal if it is contended that she was not in a fit state to give evidence because of her mental health or the conditions of her incarceration. Whether that appeal is successful or not is a different matter.
Interesting you make the point about her incarceration conditions given some of the Maxwell clan have already been interviewed, by quite a favourable media, complaining about how she has been held.
The conditions were designed to both protect her and stop her from committing suicide given that she was deemed to be a suicide risk. I can't see how those conditions would be a factor in any appeal - nor her refusal to give evidence herself.
The reality is she is going to be locked away for the rest of her days so appeals are likely to continue for as long as possible as what has she got to lose by appealing.
Rather than moan about what is in fact an extremely efficient mass testing facility I think that we should be asking whether our huge commitment to this is a good use of scarce resources.
As a means of identifying those infected and requiring them to self isolate it just doesn't seem to have worked. Countries with much less testing seem to manage to control their R rate at least as well as the UK, better in many cases. As a means of identifying how much Covid is about it seems a bit voodoo pollish and it may be that a smaller more balanced sample would be at least as useful.
I agree with that to an extent, but some countries that test less have a higher hospitalisation per case rate than the UK, which suggests that they are missing a lot of asymptomatic and minor cases, so perhaps their success is not quite as good as it appears, or alternately we aren't doing as badly as we think.
In the end when this is really over we will be able to count the cost and figure out who did well and who did badly. I'm fairly sure the UK will not stand out from the pack in the end. Many countries that looked to be doing better than the UK in 2020 have now caught up or overtaken us, and the pandemic isn't over yet.
It's going to be a muddle with everyone trying to score political points with the benefit of hindsight and in complete isolation, ignoring the knock on consequences of an alternative course of action. I am not looking forward to it (unless someone wants to appoint me as counsel to the inquiry natch).
To take your specific example we have been running very tight on hospital beds for years, probably too tight. It is very important to reduce hospitalisation to a minimum because we simply don't have capacity. A country like Germany, which seems to have far more beds and, according to @Foxy's statistics, nearly 5x the ICU capacity will have different priorities and lower criteria for coming into hospital in the first place.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
I'm going to step out of the conversation as it isn't productive. You're the only one I can see calling people a bully, or insulting people. I stepped in to defend Charles after he was unfairly smeared.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
You bullied somebody off this website. Don't you dare try and call me a bully.
I did no such thing.
Someone left the website because they didn't like my opinion, politely expressed. That is not bullying. If I was bullying I'd expect to be rightly banned, but politely expressing your own opinion is never bullying even if others don't like that opinion.
They asked you to stop engaging with them, which you ignored. So they left.
It’s a pity this forum doesn’t have a block function for such instances.
It's actually possible to bodge together your own crude "block" functionality. There are browser addons that allow you to program certain sites to hide html elements that meet certain criteria. So you could fairly easily have it detect a user's name, say "Farooq", and your browser would collapse that element and you wouldn't see it.
It might also spoil your experience since you'd end up seeing weird orphan threads etc., but it can be done.
I know someone who is doing 5 tests a day just because someone they saw someone a week ago who now has Omicron. If that type of behaviour is being repeated then no wonder there are supply problems for tests.
Yesterday in SA they did 34,753 tests some of which had to be paid for by the person taking the test.
In the UK we did 1,476,216 tests all of which were free.
And our testing system is a "shambles"
Only an hour or so ago I heard on the radio a medic lauding the SA testing system because of how many PCR tests they do. Yet we in the UK do far more PCR tests than SA even if it is a smaller percentage of the total due to the vast number of LFTs. Some people just hate this country without any reason.
When you laud the efforts of country X you don't silently attack country Y.
So unless you've missed something in your reporting where the medic complained about the UK you seem to have leapt to a completely invalid conclusion.
It was in the context of "what has gone wrong with testing?" Saying SA does more PCR tests was only true as a fraction of the total testing, in reality the UK does over 20 times as many PCR tests per capita each day, and it is a smaller fraction of the total testing because we do a huge number of LFTs as well. It was a misleading statement, made by the sort of person who should know better.
There's a certain class of liberal that loathes this nation and everything about it.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to pick brains on here regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. My questions are:
People on here have talked about her revealing names as part of a plea bargain, but as the Maxwell family saying they are challenging the verdict, wouldn't revealing names be tantamount to accepting the guilty verdict?
What are the chances of the Maxwells repeatedly challenging on points of law until the verdict is overturned?
Where is the Maxwell family getting the money from for this extensive and expensive legal defence?
I would genuinely welcome any thoughts on these matters.
Too late for a plea bargain which as the name suggests involves pleading guilty and is a deal with the prosecution who, at least in English law, are now out of the picture. Sentencing is for the judge. The suggestion that she can spill beans at this stage to reduce her sentence verges on conspiracy theory, but some conspiracy theories are true.
Can't see an appeal succeeding certainly not on all counts. No idea about finances, she may have some Epstein money left and has a rich husband
Her brothers were also acquitted of a remarkably serious fraud committed by their late father on a pension fund.
I have no knowledge of American criminal procedure but in this country when the Crown closes its case the defence can plead no case to answer and if there is insufficient evidence in law to allow a safe conviction, taken at its very highest, then the case is taken away from the Jury and dismissed. If the Crown get past that point then the defence has a difficult choice to make: does the accused give evidence or not.
Donald Findlay QC, who has almost certainly done more murder cases for the defence than anyone else in the world given the way our system operates, is famous for not letting his clients give evidence, recognising the many risks. But in sex crimes a person whose case has got past the no case to answer point is taking a very large risk and in my limited experience accused do give evidence in rape cases.
Not having GH give evidence was a brave call and may well form the basis of an appeal if it is contended that she was not in a fit state to give evidence because of her mental health or the conditions of her incarceration. Whether that appeal is successful or not is a different matter.
Interesting you make the point about her incarceration conditions given some of the Maxwell clan have already been interviewed, by quite a favourable media, complaining about how she has been held.
I was discussing the Ghislaine Maxwell case with my brother and pointed to the fact that her brothers were acquitted of fraud. He said financial fraud is usually very complex and few understand it, whereas people understand sex. He said she would be found guilty, I thought otherwise. I fear that wealthy and powerful people can keep appealing against a verdict until it is overturned.
Fraud seems to have a "I was too think to understand what I was doing" defence that works wonders on juries.
Just a small (bit, I think, important) point on the trans rights debate, and specifically on access to spaces reserved for a particular gender: I don't use men's changing facilities etc because it's part of my "male identity" to do so. I do so as a courtesy to other people around me, because if I used the female facilities, that might cause discomfort to others who were also using them. I of course understand that this is more of a big deal for individuals who's identity is not as clear-cut, but I also think we have lost sight of why facilities are segregated in the first place. It's not about what room you want to be in; it's about how others will perceive your actions. The fact that this seemingly basic point gets completely ignored is, to me, emblematic of how badly the debate is being conducted at present.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to pick brains on here regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. My questions are:
People on here have talked about her revealing names as part of a plea bargain, but as the Maxwell family saying they are challenging the verdict, wouldn't revealing names be tantamount to accepting the guilty verdict?
What are the chances of the Maxwells repeatedly challenging on points of law until the verdict is overturned?
Where is the Maxwell family getting the money from for this extensive and expensive legal defence?
I would genuinely welcome any thoughts on these matters.
Too late for a plea bargain which as the name suggests involves pleading guilty and is a deal with the prosecution who, at least in English law, are now out of the picture. Sentencing is for the judge. The suggestion that she can spill beans at this stage to reduce her sentence verges on conspiracy theory, but some conspiracy theories are true.
Can't see an appeal succeeding certainly not on all counts. No idea about finances, she may have some Epstein money left and has a rich husband
Her brothers were also acquitted of a remarkably serious fraud committed by their late father on a pension fund.
I have no knowledge of American criminal procedure but in this country when the Crown closes its case the defence can plead no case to answer and if there is insufficient evidence in law to allow a safe conviction, taken at its very highest, then the case is taken away from the Jury and dismissed. If the Crown get past that point then the defence has a difficult choice to make: does the accused give evidence or not.
Donald Findlay QC, who has almost certainly done more murder cases for the defence than anyone else in the world given the way our system operates, is famous for not letting his clients give evidence, recognising the many risks. But in sex crimes a person whose case has got past the no case to answer point is taking a very large risk and in my limited experience accused do give evidence in rape cases.
Not having GH give evidence was a brave call and may well form the basis of an appeal if it is contended that she was not in a fit state to give evidence because of her mental health or the conditions of her incarceration. Whether that appeal is successful or not is a different matter.
Interesting you make the point about her incarceration conditions given some of the Maxwell clan have already been interviewed, by quite a favourable media, complaining about how she has been held.
The conditions were designed to both protect her and stop her from committing suicide given that she was deemed to be a suicide risk. I can't see how those conditions would be a factor in any appeal - nor her refusal to give evidence herself.
The reality is she is going to be locked away for the rest of her days so appeals are likely to continue for as long as possible as what has she got to lose by appealing.
Only her remaining wealth which is little use to her inside.
I know someone who is doing 5 tests a day just because someone they saw someone a week ago who now has Omicron. If that type of behaviour is being repeated then no wonder there are supply problems for tests.
Yesterday in SA they did 34,753 tests some of which had to be paid for by the person taking the test.
In the UK we did 1,476,216 tests all of which were free.
And our testing system is a "shambles"
Only an hour or so ago I heard on the radio a medic lauding the SA testing system because of how many PCR tests they do. Yet we in the UK do far more PCR tests than SA even if it is a smaller percentage of the total due to the vast number of LFTs. Some people just hate this country without any reason.
When you laud the efforts of country X you don't silently attack country Y.
So unless you've missed something in your reporting where the medic complained about the UK you seem to have leapt to a completely invalid conclusion.
It was in the context of "what has gone wrong with testing?" Saying SA does more PCR tests was only true as a fraction of the total testing, in reality the UK does over 20 times as many PCR tests per capita each day, and it is a smaller fraction of the total testing because we do a huge number of LFTs as well. It was a misleading statement, made by the sort of person who should know better.
There's a certain class of liberal that loathes this nation and everything about it.
Sadly a lot of them post on here regularly.
I wouldn’t say liberals but I certainly would say that of labour supporters, or a sizeable minority of them. Although Galloways counterpoint about the right was also true.
I know I am overly sensitive at times, I know I have some problems and have been quite open about those. But what I will not tolerate is being called a bully or abusive by those that are abusive, aggressive and nasty to others.
That is quite enough from me.
Receipe time
- scrape all the meat off the turkey that is looking at you in the fridge - per 250g of meat, 75g of pitted olives, 1 chopped onion, couple of garlic cloves, 75g of parmessan, couple of sweat peppers, roughly chopped, 75g of flaked almonds, couple of spoons of sour cream. And the left over turkey gravy - some rice - 2 bottles of white wine
Prep - Get everything ready in bowls. - The egg, 3 or 4 spoons of gravy and the sour cream get beat up together, in one bowl. - Parmesan finely grated. - Olives rough chopped. - Red pepers in small squares - Turkey shredded - scrape all the meat off the bones
Method
- Toast the flaked almonds in a frying pan large enough for the whole job. - When toasted, put the almonds in a bowl - Fry the onion and garlic in a bit of oil in the frying pan. Open the wine, and have a glass. I find a touch of the white on the onions, after they have started to cook is good. - Tip the shredded turkey in. Drink a glass of wine - Make it all good and hot - keep turning it over - olives and almonds go in. Drink a glass of wine - a coupe of minutes later the mix of egg, gravy and sour cream go in. Drink a glass of wine - Another couple of minutes, add the parmesan. Melt it in thoroughly - it will seem to disappear in to the dish - Turn it off an cover, to sit for a couple of minutes. Drink a glass of wine. - Make the rice to go with it.
I know zero about cricket, but even I have heard the ECB have big issues with racism and the English team are hopeless.
I suspect those two things are linked in some way.
As you say you don't know anything about cricket. England team is the premier one day team in the world and lots of diversity within that team.
I think the only place with racism issues was Yorkshire and that's because YCCC seems to follow the Yorkshire approach that if you haven't lived in Yorkshire since at least Viking times (and have the family tree to back it up) you aren't a true Yorkshireman.
There is an wider issue with a lack of particularly black kids coming through. But that is less to do with racism and more to do with little school cricket, probably not helped by the cricket going to sky, but the biggest thing, the shear drag of other sports.
Football, particularly since the expansion of academy program, hoovers up masses of talent and places restrictions on what the kids can do and of course the money is huge. But also seeing other sports like rugby looking wider and again the money can be really good.
Its the reason West Indies have become piss poor at cricket, other sports just have a much bigger upside.
Gone are the days where if you show talent you tinker at different sports in the winter and summer. My mates kid is in a top tier football academy, its a year round thing.
Cricket is piss poor money for a standard county player. You have to get through that, establish yourself as a really good one day player, then you can earn.
The Caribbean has switched to Basketball rather than cricket. It requires less space, less equipment, and if you are good enough it pays as well as football does.
Cricket until IPL couldn't compete and it still can't locally.
That switch happened because West Indies cricket was sold to satellite and terrestrial television made up the gaps showing American basketball.
On British cricket versus football, Ian Botham was talking about this back in the 80s and 90s. It used to be that footballers and cricketers earned about the same, but that changed. Cricket at the very top level pays very well but county cricket is not competitive with even lower league football.
Its not just cricket, so many sports struggle as they are incredibly top heavy and a number of core sports pay orders of magnitude to wider base. I saw an interesting video following tennis player Liam Broady, ranked about 100-150 in the world and he basically make very little money after all costs. He said winning a Wimbledon first round match enables him to pay for his strength and conditioning coach for the year.
When I started watcher lower league football I was surprised at the amount of money being paid to the players. Can't be related to the gate takings, although the bar at the place where I watch does quite well. Cricket, in our neck of the woods, as I've posted before, does quite well for local interest, but I'm as sure as I can be that only one or two players make any sort of living out of it. Lancashire League cricket, IIRC, used to pay it's high quality professional as a result of a hat being taken round at each game. Especially worthwhile if the professional had, that day, done something exceptional!
These days its not just the pay. Being in a top tier football academy gets you access to good schooling, instant top level medical care, they feed you, cloth you, you travel the world, even from a really young age.
Then get a pro contract at 16, it can be worth enough to set you up for life without even ever playing EPL first team games.
Some of us did wonder whether Trump might still be President if he'd not run scared of the alt-right covid denialists but instead kept ownership of what was not a bad record on Covid.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
Guys, guys, look at us. Arguing. Bickering. It didn’t used to be like this.
Hmm. I'm a fairly irregular poster, but I started posting here around five or (maybe nearer six?) years ago after years of lurking.
I stopped posting almost entirely this year due to health issues which I've been fairly candid about, but I also stopped lurking too, so I've been absent almost an entire year.
My perspective is that while much has stayed the same... it also seems like a much angrier, testier and less civil place to be. Spats will always happen, but they seem to go from 0 to all the way up to 11 in the blink of an eye now.
I don't know if that is because two years of this pandemic has worn us all down to the bone and made us snappier and grouchier, or if it's something else.
But that's my two cents, as someone who took a year's sabbatical from posting on or reading PB.
I made the mistake of believing you. When I opened the link I saw “I came up with a vaccine, with three vaccines,” Trump told Owens.
Not sensible. Not even sane.
If there's a million people who'll take the vaccines if they think Trump invented them who wouldn't otherwise, then that's... what? a few hundred lives saved at least?
@Endillion fair, but the simple fact is that this entire debate is completely meaningless. There is nothing stopping anyone from using whatever toilet they want. Talk of a distinction between pre- and post-op is meaningless because there isn’t a “between the legs” inspector at the door of every bathroom.
Ultimately self ID (in respect to toilets) does not create an increased danger to women because there is nothing stopping violent and abusive men from going into women’s toilets already, regardless of trans or otherwise.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
Travel from the UK to France
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU
Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Exactly. They aren't treating us differently. They're applying the 3rd country rules which our government demanded be imposed upon us.
What’s the warning
Be careful what you wish for - it may become true.
I don't understand the complaints. What did they think "3rd country" meant? This is what they demanded and they've succeeded in being treated thus.
Just wait until next week when the usual suspects try and blame the French for our lack of Border Control Posts, staff or computers.
Except the rights of British citizens with legal residency in the EU that pre-dates Brexit have their rights protected by treaty.
I think this is just Macron being a twat again, assuming the allegation is true.
Blocking the UK, when Belgium had had case rates twice as high as our peak at that point for weeks was the action of a kneejerking numpty.
It’s totally Macron being a twat.
But it’s the resounding silence from the Remoaners that amuses
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Because it’s a breach of the Withdrawal Treaty in the same way that they got very excited about the administrative procedures on settled status.
It is - in the same way that other border closures were breaches of other treaties like Schengen. But its a pandemic - temporary breaches are permitted.
Again, we are being treated as we demanded - as a 3rd country. They had to arbitrate on which exceptions to their medically induced ban would exist and they have tret us like the rest of the world not Europe. At our request.
You and others complaining demonstrates English exceptionalism at its finest. That "treat us like a 3rd country" actually meant "we don't want to be European but you will do what we bally well say because we are English and that means we get to make all the rules".
Yes, there were plenty on here saying "ban all travel". Now the French are trying it (which personally I think is a waste of time) the same posters are trying to make a point of it.
Its totally a waste of time - they already have Omicron so they're as fucked as their neighbours.
But - and its a very bit but - it is an established principle that countries have the absolute right in an emergency to change processes even if written into treaty. This was the point being made last March "THEY CAN'T CLOSE THEIR BORDERS COS SCHENGEN" and yet they did close their borders and we didn't.
How a nation chooses to draw up its pandemic emergency powers is up to that nation. Some of our red list country bans have made no sense at all, yet here we are shouting at the French for doing the same. Instead of an arbitrary red list they have done an arbitrary EU list. We aren't EU, we demanded not to be EU and be tret like ROW and now we're Outraged that we're seen as not EU and as ROW.
What the frack is wrong with some people? This is what you wanted!
Closing to transit is unusual
I suspect the fear is that the person will be able to transit into XYZ at the border so leaves France with the problem.
It also strikes me as typical French point scoring.
It’s entirely driven by domestic politics. This effects very few people. (Fly if you need to go to your other home).
But the hypocrisy is deafening
Probably impacts a fair few people as a lot of people will be travelling by car to see all their families at this time of year.
As a point of political point scoring the timing couldn't be better / worse for impacting Brits.
France has the right to ban those people. The issue is with the few who have residency in another EU country and protected status under the Withdrawal Treaty
The issue is clearly with the people like me who booked a nice weekend with his wife to Bruges for late January, which was possible because France allowed drivers to transit en route to Belgium, and Belgium allowed visitors by road for up to 48 hours.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The French are trying to restrict travel to essential only.
By blocking British residents of Belgium or the Netherlands who want to use EuroTunnel and transit France?
Are the blocking British? Or just anyone who isn't EU/Schengen?
Travel from the UK to France
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU
Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Exactly. They aren't treating us differently. They're applying the 3rd country rules which our government demanded be imposed upon us.
What’s the warning
Be careful what you wish for - it may become true.
I don't understand the complaints. What did they think "3rd country" meant? This is what they demanded and they've succeeded in being treated thus.
Just wait until next week when the usual suspects try and blame the French for our lack of Border Control Posts, staff or computers.
Except the rights of British citizens with legal residency in the EU that pre-dates Brexit have their rights protected by treaty.
I think this is just Macron being a twat again, assuming the allegation is true.
Blocking the UK, when Belgium had had case rates twice as high as our peak at that point for weeks was the action of a kneejerking numpty.
It’s totally Macron being a twat.
But it’s the resounding silence from the Remoaners that amuses
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Because it’s a breach of the Withdrawal Treaty in the same way that they got very excited about the administrative procedures on settled status.
It is - in the same way that other border closures were breaches of other treaties like Schengen. But its a pandemic - temporary breaches are permitted.
Again, we are being treated as we demanded - as a 3rd country. They had to arbitrate on which exceptions to their medically induced ban would exist and they have tret us like the rest of the world not Europe. At our request.
You and others complaining demonstrates English exceptionalism at its finest. That "treat us like a 3rd country" actually meant "we don't want to be European but you will do what we bally well say because we are English and that means we get to make all the rules".
Yes, there were plenty on here saying "ban all travel". Now the French are trying it (which personally I think is a waste of time) the same posters are trying to make a point of it.
Its totally a waste of time - they already have Omicron so they're as fucked as their neighbours.
But - and its a very bit but - it is an established principle that countries have the absolute right in an emergency to change processes even if written into treaty. This was the point being made last March "THEY CAN'T CLOSE THEIR BORDERS COS SCHENGEN" and yet they did close their borders and we didn't.
How a nation chooses to draw up its pandemic emergency powers is up to that nation. Some of our red list country bans have made no sense at all, yet here we are shouting at the French for doing the same. Instead of an arbitrary red list they have done an arbitrary EU list. We aren't EU, we demanded not to be EU and be tret like ROW and now we're Outraged that we're seen as not EU and as ROW.
What the frack is wrong with some people? This is what you wanted!
Closing to transit is unusual
I suspect the fear is that the person will be able to transit into XYZ at the border so leaves France with the problem.
It also strikes me as typical French point scoring.
It’s entirely driven by domestic politics. This effects very few people. (Fly if you need to go to your other home).
But the hypocrisy is deafening
Probably impacts a fair few people as a lot of people will be travelling by car to see all their families at this time of year.
As a point of political point scoring the timing couldn't be better / worse for impacting Brits.
France has the right to ban those people. The issue is with the few who have residency in another EU country and protected status under the Withdrawal Treaty
You do understand the absolute right of sovereign states to suspend various things a times of national emergency?
2 negative LFTs in our house today. We've managed to get all 4 infected and recovered from omicron in 22 days. And in 2 separate batches so we weren't all sick at the same time. Pretty efficient wotk, eh? Onwards and upwards for 2022 then.
Charles has been rude and abusive to me in the past, so have plenty of others here. They know who they are.
There are plenty of people who I strongly disagree with who don't act in this way. This has nothing to do with politics but instead is about in my mind, right vs wrong. I hate bullies, I hate bullying.
We saw this the other day with the jump onto HYUFD just because he expressed a point of view. That was bullying.
As I said when you posted earlier I don’t believe I have.
But feel free to post evidence to back up your allegation.
Somebody who bullied somebody off this website is calling other people abusive, ironic.
I don't think Charles has ever bullied or been abusive to anyone. I don't get your vendetta against him and a few others.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
I wasn't referring to Charles when I said that. I think you know exactly who I was referring to.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
Politely disagreeing with you isn't bullying you, or "shouting you down".
A bully calling somebody else a bully. Ironic.
Guys, guys, look at us. Arguing. Bickering. It didn’t used to be like this.
Hmm. I'm a fairly irregular poster, but I started posting here around five or (maybe nearer six?) years ago after years of lurking.
I stopped posting almost entirely this year due to health issues which I've been fairly candid about, but I also stopped lurking too, so I've been absent almost an entire year.
My perspective is that while much has stayed the same... it also seems like a much angrier, testier and less civil place to be. Spats will always happen, but they seem to go from 0 to all the way up to 11 in the blink of an eye now.
I don't know if that is because two years of this pandemic has worn us all down to the bone and made us snappier and grouchier, or if it's something else.
But that's my two cents, as someone who took a year's sabbatical from posting on or reading PB.
I would agree with that and your diagnosis for the reasons seems plausible.
Whilst there was always a core there are also more people who seem to spend far too long on here. I probably include myself in that. It doesn't help with perspective and seems to make them (us) more intemperate.
I am not a lawyer but I would like to pick brains on here regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. My questions are:
People on here have talked about her revealing names as part of a plea bargain, but as the Maxwell family saying they are challenging the verdict, wouldn't revealing names be tantamount to accepting the guilty verdict?
What are the chances of the Maxwells repeatedly challenging on points of law until the verdict is overturned?
Where is the Maxwell family getting the money from for this extensive and expensive legal defence?
I would genuinely welcome any thoughts on these matters.
Too late for a plea bargain which as the name suggests involves pleading guilty and is a deal with the prosecution who, at least in English law, are now out of the picture. Sentencing is for the judge. The suggestion that she can spill beans at this stage to reduce her sentence verges on conspiracy theory, but some conspiracy theories are true.
Can't see an appeal succeeding certainly not on all counts. No idea about finances, she may have some Epstein money left and has a rich husband
Her brothers were also acquitted of a remarkably serious fraud committed by their late father on a pension fund.
I have no knowledge of American criminal procedure but in this country when the Crown closes its case the defence can plead no case to answer and if there is insufficient evidence in law to allow a safe conviction, taken at its very highest, then the case is taken away from the Jury and dismissed. If the Crown get past that point then the defence has a difficult choice to make: does the accused give evidence or not.
Donald Findlay QC, who has almost certainly done more murder cases for the defence than anyone else in the world given the way our system operates, is famous for not letting his clients give evidence, recognising the many risks. But in sex crimes a person whose case has got past the no case to answer point is taking a very large risk and in my limited experience accused do give evidence in rape cases.
Not having GH give evidence was a brave call and may well form the basis of an appeal if it is contended that she was not in a fit state to give evidence because of her mental health or the conditions of her incarceration. Whether that appeal is successful or not is a different matter.
Interesting you make the point about her incarceration conditions given some of the Maxwell clan have already been interviewed, by quite a favourable media, complaining about how she has been held.
I was discussing the Ghislaine Maxwell case with my brother and pointed to the fact that her brothers were acquitted of fraud. He said financial fraud is usually very complex and few understand it, whereas people understand sex. He said she would be found guilty, I thought otherwise. I fear that wealthy and powerful people can keep appealing against a verdict until it is overturned.
Fraud seems to have a "I was too think to understand what I was doing" defence that works wonders on juries.
Fraud is often badly prosecuted imo by people who have never placed a yankee at Cheltenham. If you tie together ten distinct actions in a slam-dunk fraud, on each of which the prosecutor has a 95 per cent chance of convincing the jury, that comes out as only a 60 per cent chance of conviction. And after acquittal, the usual muppets are up on their hind legs demanding "expert" juries.
I made the mistake of believing you. When I opened the link I saw “I came up with a vaccine, with three vaccines,” Trump told Owens.
Not sensible. Not even sane.
If there's a million people who'll take the vaccines if they think Trump invented them who wouldn't otherwise, then that's... what? a few hundred lives saved at least?
Two wrongs make a what now?
Oh it's good if he's encouraging people to take the jabs. But the Messianic "only I can fix it" subtext is, in my view, more harmful than any good Trump might incidentally be doing. Vaccine scepticism is bad, but the direct undermining of democracy that Trump is clearly guilty of is worse.
Comments
If you want a specific name then https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy seems a prime example that he's constantly retweeting here that meets the description.
A more valid criticism is why only now is the government / NHS increasing hospital capacity for potential COVID patients. It is clear covid would already put more demand on the system before Omicron and even since Omicron, its been a month
So again you simply can't see the problem. You are starting from the principle that people are working in good faith while the issue is that a lot of the people are the exact opposite.
And yes you are right that the man would be arrested but that doesn't help the woman he abused / raped through the opportunity you gave him.
https://twitter.com/moleatthedoor/status/1475849571263729673?s=20
These scientists with their actual evidence can't be right, the models say they are wrong.
More seriously - this is very good news and shows that COVID is just the same as other viruses and pathogens, our immunity carries over across all variants. So even if the next variant evades nAbs like Omicron our memory cell based immunity will still ensure case severity is very low.
But the hypocrisy is deafening
The other big issue is about the process to achieve a legal change of gender. At present it is long and burdensome. Many get stuck in transit or drop out of it entirely and give up. Amongst trans people, therefore, are many who have not transitioned, who are identifying as their desired gender, are living as that, best they can, but haven’t had it officially recognized. The ‘feelings vs facts’ question posed by the gender critical side of the argument is not easily answered imo despite the loaded framing. Who is confident saying to a person born female who identifies and lives as a man but hasn’t managed to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, “Sorry, facts is facts, you’re a woman”? Not me.
So the question is whether to streamline and demedicalize the process. I support this reform because it would improve the lives of this minority whilst everybody else would barely notice a difference if at all. Will making it easier to change gender cause lots of people to do it frivolously or for sinister reasons. I don’t think so. Why would it? It’s a profound thing to do regardless of how lengthy and bureaucratic (or not) the process is. We’re not talking large numbers of people here - why not help them when the cost of doing so is zero?
The May government were planning on making the change but it was ditched by this one and the whole thing has instead become a culture war battleground. I think it’s a shame. Several countries have this approach and they’re about to be joined by Germany. We should revisit and implement. Doubt it'll be anytime soon, it seems to have become politically impossible, but one day we should. When we do I reckon we’ll be looking back after a few years wondering what all the fuss was about.
Next.
As a point of political point scoring the timing couldn't be better / worse for impacting Brits.
I have no problem at all in such people wanting to dress, name themselves and live as a woman if that is their preference. Good luck to them. I do have a problem at the edge cases, such as prisons, if the person concerned has not gone past the stage of being able to penetrate anyone with their penis. A reasonably simple recalibration on this could take an awful lot of heat out of the debate.
As a means of identifying those infected and requiring them to self isolate it just doesn't seem to have worked. Countries with much less testing seem to manage to control their R rate at least as well as the UK, better in many cases. As a means of identifying how much Covid is about it seems a bit voodoo pollish and it may be that a smaller more balanced sample would be at least as useful.
On British cricket versus football, Ian Botham was talking about this back in the 80s and 90s. It used to be that footballers and cricketers earned about the same, but that changed. Cricket at the very top level pays very well but county cricket is not competitive with even lower league football.
'Or should it be inclusion unless a compelling case for exclusion can be made?'
A conviction for rape would, I should think, be a compelling etc, until the inevitable hard case/miscarriage of justice comes along, but surely as a society we should be grown-up enough to realise that, with the best will in world, sometimes errors are made and, given that hard cases make bad law, Mr K is right.
Extraordinary claims are very easily undermined, which I think you are now on the verge of learning.
So now we enter the stage of the argument where you choose between furiously rowing back, shifting the goalposts, or doubling down when you know you were wrong. You almost always go for option 3.
-All passengers had to prove they were double vaccinated. 100%. Same with crew.
-Each passenger was tested as they arrived at the terminal and had a nerve-wracking wait in the terminal until they were declared negative and could board. Some tested positive and they and their companions were turned away.
- On board, mask wearing except on open deck and your cabins was obligatory. If you were exempt from mask wearing, you couldn't join the cruise. We were told that if you didn't follow this rule, you would be put off at the next port of call to travel home at your own expense. If you didn't sign acceptance of this, you couldn't join the cruise.
- You couldn't serve yourself food in the buffet. Staff in gloves and masks served up what you pointed at.
- We were tested onboard in order to go ashore at our various stops. We were also tested before disembarking at Southampton.
- - We then had to self-isolate at home until we got the all clear on a day 2 PCR test.
In summary, it wasn't a particularly enjoyable trip but we felt much safer than being in London. We left before Omicron struck and the rules were rigidly enforced.
In the end when this is really over we will be able to count the cost and figure out who did well and who did badly. I'm fairly sure the UK will not stand out from the pack in the end. Many countries that looked to be doing better than the UK in 2020 have now caught up or overtaken us, and the pandemic isn't over yet.
A bit more tolerance of people with views different to your own would do you good. Some of the best conversations I have on this site are with people I disagree with, and some of the people I find most objectionable vote the same way I do. Its enlightening to embrace a variety of viewpoints not just a circle of likeminded people.
NB intersex here means with significant male and female physicality, such as an ovary on one side and a testicle on the other. It does not refer to more common, and minor, chromosomal conditions such as being XXY or XYY.
I get on with plenty of people I disagree with. HYUFD, MrEd, Richard, in fact the only people I don't get on with are the bullies and those who condescend and are abusive to me and others - and I am not the first to point this out.
I can’t see Admins tolerating that.
We can debate edge cases all you like, this is about principle. I think we can provide absolute support to people who transition without giving them the kind of absolutist pass that we wouldn't give to people who haven't transitioned their gender.
I don't see the scale of this "debate" as it is presented. Abusey rapey men do not need to pretend to be women to gain access to women who they want to attack. They can do that anyway. The odd case here and there doesn't prove an argument either way.
Again, I am coming at this both as a member of the LBGTQ community and as the father of a genderfluid offspring who dates trans men. I am not what you could call transphobic even if your response to my point was trying to edge me towards that camp.
On the subject of Sandy's bins, another report from the real world.
A very Christmassy Christmas indeed in the Cookson household. My parents stayed Christmas even and Christmas day - which they couldn't do last year; 14 of us for Christmas dinner (including my new infant nephew, hurray) - which we obviously couldn't do last year; and a few very pleasant days of post-Christmas torpor, which we could do last year but the attraction of which was rather marred by the fat that it was all we could do.* Actually, we have been out and about: a climbing wall with the daughters on the 28th, and the Sandcastle at Blackpool** yesterday, followed by the illuminations. Off for a walk with some friends from school today, and two - two! - parties planned tomorrow night. (I don't expect to enjoy either of them outrageously, but will take pleasure that such things are possible.) Then we'll go out for a walk with six or seven other families from Sale on NYD. Throughout this there has been a pot on the stoev boiling up the remains of the turkey for soup. And as a perennial highlight of the period between Christmas and New Year, we have spent every evening around the telly watching World's Strongest Man***, ****.
Lest I paint too rosy a picture I should also concede that Christmas day started with a row which started with my wife asking my youngest daughter slightly to the left to be in a photo and escalated within 30 seconds to youngest daughter screaming that her mother had ruined her Christmas Day. But she is a spitfire, that one (we're working on it) and it blew over quickly.
Anyway, the point of all this is that in the real world, we're nearly there. Covid is, by the scale of last year, an irritation. Other subjects compete for our attention; we can go hours, days even, barely considering it. It's a happy position to be in and does me a world of good to remind myself of it.
*actually, last year's days between Christmas and New Year were rather fine too because of the snow, but still.
**I love Blackpool more every time I go. In contrast to normal times, throughout the pandemic it has felt more like the real world than anywhere else. You still get angry signs from the council about covid, but what you mostly get is people trying to enjoy themselves or sell things to people trying to enjoy themselves. It has been the least fearful place in the country.
***the outcome of which I already know thanks to some idiot football commentator during the euros, but it isn't taking away from the pleasure of it.
****I think if there was one sport I would love to excel at above all others it would be strongman. Not that I have ever put the slightest effort into bringing this about, I just think it would be fun to be really strong.
This conversation seems most unproductive. If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all is a good rule of thumb.
There are plenty of people who I strongly disagree with who don't act in this way. This has nothing to do with politics but instead is about in my mind, right vs wrong. I hate bullies, I hate bullying.
We saw this the other day with the jump onto HYUFD just because he expressed a point of view. That was bullying.
BBC News - China bans its national football players from getting tattoos
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-59827047
I am being accused of being abusive and being a bully. By a bully, somebody who literally bullied somebody else off this website.
Someone left the website because they didn't like my opinion, politely expressed. That is not bullying. If I was bullying I'd expect to be rightly banned, but politely expressing your own opinion is never bullying even if others don't like that opinion.
I have no knowledge of American criminal procedure but in this country when the Crown closes its case the defence can plead no case to answer and if there is insufficient evidence in law to allow a safe conviction, taken at its very highest, then the case is taken away from the Jury and dismissed. If the Crown get past that point then the defence has a difficult choice to make: does the accused give evidence or not.
Donald Findlay QC, who has almost certainly done more murder cases for the defence than anyone else in the world given the way our system operates, is famous for not letting his clients give evidence, recognising the many risks. But in sex crimes a person whose case has got past the no case to answer point is taking a very large risk and in my limited experience accused do give evidence in rape cases.
Not having GH give evidence was a brave call and may well form the basis of an appeal if it is contended that she was not in a fit state to give evidence because of her mental health or the conditions of her incarceration. Whether that appeal is successful or not is a different matter.
Don't call me a bully ever again.
I have been nothing but respectful to you since you asked me to be and you've just thrown it back in my face at every junction. That's it, line crossed.
"Three in 10 local authority areas in the UK are recording their highest rate of new Covid cases since mass testing began in summer 2020, new analysis shows.
The areas include around three-quarters of authorities in north-west England, nearly two-thirds in the West Midlands and almost half in the East Midlands.
But no London boroughs are on the list, while only a tiny number of areas in the south-east and eastern England are now at record levels, suggesting the latest surge in cases may have peaked in these parts of the country.
In a similar survey in the week before Christmas, two-thirds of local authorities in London were reporting record case rates."
From Guardian live blog.
PS. My bins were collected yesterday.
By making the link he ensures that companies such as Harley Davidson will continue to have balancing sanctions applied to them, and that further balancing tariffs etc will be applied, as he has chosen to deadlock the conversation.
A fairly stupid thing for him to do.
https://mobile.twitter.com/APHClarkson/status/1476303953595932677
It is a good example of what an ultra-safe world would be like. Hell.
That is quite enough from me.
Seems to be getting rather heated here... Maybe everyone chill and have a mince pie?
Ian Wright is becoming a bit "everything is racist".
The reason for the issue over the African Cup of Nations is this...unless we think Human Right Watch is also racist.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/21/covid-19-security-concerns-threaten-cameroon-football-tournament
A point made several times at frequent intervals.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56344553
Nor did I bully anyone, the person concerned never accused me of bullying him either. He expressed distaste for my opinions, that's his prerogative. If someone wants to get away from opinions they dislike and go to a "safe space" away from opinions they don't like they're free to do so but expressing your own opinion is not bullying.
Yes, you read that right.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/587670-trump-fires-up-vaccine-tensions
Why should we comment? This is what Leavers wanted. To be outside the EU and to be treated like outsiders.
Well congrats!
Missed this remaino-trope bit before.
No matter how hard you chisel away, Ms B (I think), the UK is not responsible for crazy decisions made by other countries.
Cricket, in our neck of the woods, as I've posted before, does quite well for local interest, but I'm as sure as I can be that only one or two players make any sort of living out of it.
Lancashire League cricket, IIRC, used to pay it's high quality professional as a result of a hat being taken round at each game. Especially worthwhile if the professional had, that day, done something exceptional!
https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/1475776733089566723
“I came up with a vaccine, with three vaccines,” Trump told Owens.
Not sensible. Not even sane.
I accept only limited responsibility for the six or so bins being full!
The reality is she is going to be locked away for the rest of her days so appeals are likely to continue for as long as possible as what has she got to lose by appealing.
To take your specific example we have been running very tight on hospital beds for years, probably too tight. It is very important to reduce hospitalisation to a minimum because we simply don't have capacity. A country like Germany, which seems to have far more beds and, according to @Foxy's statistics, nearly 5x the ICU capacity will have different priorities and lower criteria for coming into hospital in the first place.
It might also spoil your experience since you'd end up seeing weird orphan threads etc., but it can be done.
- scrape all the meat off the turkey that is looking at you in the fridge
- per 250g of meat, 75g of pitted olives, 1 chopped onion, couple of garlic cloves, 75g of parmessan, couple of sweat peppers, roughly chopped, 75g of flaked almonds, couple of spoons of sour cream. And the left over turkey gravy
- some rice
- 2 bottles of white wine
Prep
- Get everything ready in bowls.
- The egg, 3 or 4 spoons of gravy and the sour cream get beat up together, in one bowl.
- Parmesan finely grated.
- Olives rough chopped.
- Red pepers in small squares
- Turkey shredded - scrape all the meat off the bones
Method
- Toast the flaked almonds in a frying pan large enough for the whole job.
- When toasted, put the almonds in a bowl
- Fry the onion and garlic in a bit of oil in the frying pan. Open the wine, and have a glass. I find a touch of the white on the onions, after they have started to cook is good.
- Tip the shredded turkey in. Drink a glass of wine
- Make it all good and hot - keep turning it over
- olives and almonds go in. Drink a glass of wine
- a coupe of minutes later the mix of egg, gravy and sour cream go in. Drink a glass of wine
- Another couple of minutes, add the parmesan. Melt it in thoroughly - it will seem to disappear in to the dish
- Turn it off an cover, to sit for a couple of minutes. Drink a glass of wine.
- Make the rice to go with it.
Serve with the other bottle of wine.
Recipe shamelessly stolen from Nigella....
Then get a pro contract at 16, it can be worth enough to set you up for life without even ever playing EPL first team games.
I stopped posting almost entirely this year due to health issues which I've been fairly candid about, but I also stopped lurking too, so I've been absent almost an entire year.
My perspective is that while much has stayed the same... it also seems like a much angrier, testier and less civil place to be. Spats will always happen, but they seem to go from 0 to all the way up to 11 in the blink of an eye now.
I don't know if that is because two years of this pandemic has worn us all down to the bone and made us snappier and grouchier, or if it's something else.
But that's my two cents, as someone who took a year's sabbatical from posting on or reading PB.
Two wrongs make a what now?
Ultimately self ID (in respect to toilets) does not create an increased danger to women because there is nothing stopping violent and abusive men from going into women’s toilets already, regardless of trans or otherwise.
Sport and prisons etc is another debate entirely.
It’s a rule cooked up specifically to spite me.
Pretty efficient wotk, eh?
Onwards and upwards for 2022 then.
But feel free to post evidence to back up your allegation.
Otherwise please stop smearing me
Whilst there was always a core there are also more people who seem to spend far too long on here. I probably include myself in that. It doesn't help with perspective and seems to make them (us) more intemperate.