Skip to content

Introducing the LAB-LD “pact” that doesn’t exist and won’t – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,674
edited January 2022 in General
imageIntroducing the LAB-LD “pact” that doesn’t exist and won’t – politicalbetting.com

The Smarkets betting exchange has just introduced a new market on whether or not there will be an electoral pact at the next election. The firm has defined a pact as Labour standing aside in five or more GB seats.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,987
    edited January 2022
    First. And I am sure that OGH is right. It is the voters themselves who will decide things. And quite right too.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    second like...... o think of something witty!!!!!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,177
    Third (like the key innings tonight)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    edited January 2022
    Some suspicion Javid might have "misspoken" again...He does seem to have a way of making these statements that are rather unclear what he is actually referring to.

    As stated, this is of course **total** bollocks. Whatever Javid said, I'd guess he was referring to a figure of 88% boosted vaccine hospitalisation efficiacy vs Omicron. Which means: boosted people are 88% less likely to be hospitalised with Omicron than unvaccinated people.

    https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1479472712875749378?s=20
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    New data shows 63% of COVID patients in England are being treated primarily for COVID, down from 67% last week and 75% in October

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1479476816821764098?s=20
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,637
    edited January 2022
    FPT
    Anabobazina said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Anabobazina said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Anabobazina said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Anabobazina said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Anabobazina said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Anabobazina said:

    maaarsh said:

    Weekly update out from NHS on the real numbers.

    Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.

    Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.

    So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.

    Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.

    (And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
    But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....

    Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
    Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
    Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
    If you have a report that a disease + condition X = *orders* of magnitude more bad outcomes.... well, it is not surprising that the medics are going "hey, throw that out the window, things are different now" without further evidence.
    We must have plenty of real world evidence now, either to the affirmative or to the contrary, given how many 'incidental' admissions we have sustained since omicron arrived. Has anyone run the numbers?
    You'd be wanting a clinical trial grade of evidence, no? Too many cross-correlations to rely on raw data, however. And no sane medic would put half the patients in the 'wrong' side with such a whacking disparity in anaesthesia outcomes.
    Hmmmm

    "Hi, I would like to run a clinical study. Half the patients will have their COVID ignored and we will go ahead with the operations, to see what happens. Yes, that increased their risk of death by 10x earlier in the epidemic. I hope it will be all fine now."
    Surely we can see what the outcomes are for covid incidentals (in separate wards) versus non-covid patients? It strikes me that we must have that data already, we can actually analyse it, without changing any policy now.
    Doesn't work, because there are so many potential biases. You MUST have proper balanced random sampling. And allocate the patients BEFORE you do the study. Justr saying we'll compare that lot with that lot because they are in different wards won't do. For one thing, I would expect that the age distribution of people with seriously harmful covid is going to differ from those with asymptomatic covid, so that's a confounding factor right there.
    :disappointed: I feel like my last ten years* or so of work (which is basically doing as Anabobazina suggested) has been entirely invalidated.

    It would be tricky and the results wouldn't stand up like a RCT (potential for lots of unobserved confounders) but there is still potential to do something useful. The better question perhaps is whether it's worth doing - the 'so what?' of the research. Say it shows there isn't much risk for incidental Covid admissions, what would that change? The patients would surely still go onto Covid-only wards (still a risk to others) and likely have non-essential treatment delayed anyway (risks to clinicians etc, risks from further spread from being e.g. wheeled to theatre).

    *Part of my early career was spent on NEWS (National Early Warning Score) and more complex models for predicting which patients in hospital were at risk of adverse outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, ICU admission) within the next 24 hours. The models worked very well, in spite of the ultimate counfounder that clinicians kept intervening with sick patients (hopefully, in some cases at least, preventing adverse outcomes) and we could not control for those interventions in the models. So, either there was massive confounding or clinicians were essentially powerless to change outcomes anyway. If the latter then the whole thing was a massive waste of time (no point in flagging up patients at risk of adverse outcomes if no intervention will help!)
    Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings! That's interesting and useful and practical stuff.

    I was just trying to think what would satisfy the let-it-rip and incidental-doesn't-matter constituencies in terms of studies, in view of the fact that they'd be seeking to pick holes in any research they didn't like.



    :smiley: Yep, one of the problems with observational studies is that if you don't like the answer you can just attack the decision to include/exclude a particular variable or quantise it in a particular way. And, if you have the funding/ability/time, do your own study with different variables until you get the opposite answer.

    The prediction models we did on hospital risk were wrong, as the famous quote goes, but useful. Tested in the real world, they gave useful predictions that were eerily close in terms of predicting how may patients in a group would die for example. Descriptive modelling is a lot harder, imho, as you probably don't have enough to get great predictions so can't test that way, but can still pick out important factors (but may be undone by counfounding etc). Best thing I try and do is sensitivity analyses on everything I can think of. If I get broadly the same answer repeatedly, then I have a bit of confidence.
    Great to hear that you are doing this work. Regarding your earlier question about whether it would change the policy response, well I guess it might, or it might not. But information is power and using the abundant real-world data we have (and which you are analysing) strikes me as far better approach than waving around a Nature report that dates back so far (pre vax, Alpha days) as to be flirting with obsolescence.
    Sorry, I'm not doing this work. May well be that someone is, somewhere, but I do think it might struggle to get funding for the reasons given (you generally have to show why it's important, nowadays). Someone working in a hospital with the data to hand might have a crack at it, but it's the kind of thing that would benefit from national data.

    But most of epidemiology is not RCTs, instead observational studies of varying quality. Some very useful studies that have changed practice for the better (e.g. Back to Sleep Campaign) and others that are more like the XKCD cartoon on significance (i.e. p-value fishing - throwing things into an analysis until a low p-value comes out. If you do that twenty times then you expect one result with p<=0.05, even if there's no relationship).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    As we are FINALLY TALKING ABOUT BOTTOMS, at least in the fine arts, here is one of my favourites. A Portrait of Louise O’Murphy, by Boucher



  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,177
    Leon said:

    As we are FINALLY TALKING ABOUT BOTTOMS, at least in the fine arts, here is one of my favourites. A Portrait of Louise O’Murphy, by Boucher



    Surely the greatest trick that artists through the ages pulled, was that the best art was the human nude, and so they just had to stare at beautiful young ladies sans covering, for hour after hour, day after day...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,796
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    New data shows 63% of COVID patients in England are being treated primarily for COVID, down from 67% last week and 75% in October

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1479476816821764098?s=20

    The South Africans ended up with that figure at just 40% at their Omicron peak, if memory serves. Ours is headed in the same direction, although possibly unlikely to reach the depths of the Gauteng experience.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,616
    Wrt hospitality. My youngest had been doing bar and restaurant work on a casual basis while doing his A- levels. He lives literally across the road so gets texted to come in when needed.
    Was doing 2-3 nights a week plus Sundays since the Summer.
    From mid-December he's done one Sunday and 3 hours on New Year's Eve.
    Just no custom to justify it. Grim.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,856
    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    What about with a statue?
  • eekeek Posts: 31,209
    @Dominic2306
    ⁩there was a rule breaking drinks party in Downing St on 20 May 2020 (not the garden drinks that have been reported) and that there is a confirmatory email trail. A new alleged partygate scandal for Sue Gray to investigate
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    eek said:

    @Dominic2306
    ⁩there was a rule breaking drinks party in Downing St on 20 May 2020 (not the garden drinks that have been reported) and that there is a confirmatory email trail. A new alleged partygate scandal for Sue Gray to investigate

    A lover, scorned
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,426
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    What about with a statue?
    Statuesque statutes?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    edited January 2022
    eek said:

    @Dominic2306
    ⁩there was a rule breaking drinks party in Downing St on 20 May 2020 (not the garden drinks that have been reported) and that there is a confirmatory email trail. A new alleged partygate scandal for Sue Gray to investigate

    Was he at this one as well?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
    Yes, that's the one.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    What about with a statue?
    Wouldn't that be criminal damage?

    Maybe they could get the Coulston jury to try that one.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,675
    Anabobazina said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    New data shows 63% of COVID patients in England are being treated primarily for COVID, down from 67% last week and 75% in October

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1479476816821764098?s=20

    The South Africans ended up with that figure at just 40% at their Omicron peak, if memory serves. Ours is headed in the same direction, although possibly unlikely to reach the depths of the Gauteng experience.
    I think that could be because of our older, fatter and more diabetic population. Still we could be heading to around 50/50. The incoming funnel looks to be at about that rate. The daily hospitalisation figure will be above 50% incidental already as it will include A&E patients who get sent home on the same day.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
    Yes, that's the one.
    Hard to believe. Victoria was rampantly sexual. Notoriously so (which is quite odd, given the way her name is associated with prudery)

    She must occasionally have wondered about one of her prettier chamber maids.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,095
    This is an interesting paragraph https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1479479746085937161/photo/1
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,856
    MrEd said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    What about with a statue?
    Wouldn't that be criminal damage?

    Maybe they could get the Coulston jury to try that one.
    Speak for yourself! I'm sure in most cases the damage would be mostly to the other party. Perhaps @Leon can advise.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
    Yes, that's the one.
    Hard to believe. Victoria was rampantly sexual. Notoriously so (which is quite odd, given the way her name is associated with prudery)

    She must occasionally have wondered about one of her prettier chamber maids.
    Maybe that is why she blocked it but needed an excuse...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    turbotubbs said:

    Leon said:

    As we are FINALLY TALKING ABOUT BOTTOMS, at least in the fine arts, here is one of my favourites. A Portrait of Louise O’Murphy, by Boucher



    Surely the greatest trick that artists through the ages pulled, was that the best art was the human nude, and so they just had to stare at beautiful young ladies sans covering, for hour after hour, day after day...
    I had a girlfriend with a figure as pleasing as O’Murphy’s. And she also loved that painting

    I asked a female photographer to take some photos of my GF, in that pose. The photographer turned out to be a lesbian, so she got quite unexpectedly excited (but restrained herself)

    The photos are much cherished
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,701
    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
    Yes, that's the one.
    Hard to believe. Victoria was rampantly sexual. Notoriously so (which is quite odd, given the way her name is associated with prudery)

    She must occasionally have wondered about one of her prettier chamber maids.
    Maybe that is why she blocked it but needed an excuse...
    I think that story has no basis in reality.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    I remember being tolled that Lesbian Sex was never illegal, I never bothered to fact check that, but from what you are quoting perhaps that is correct?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,872
    "Pacts" are the dog without a bark. In 2019 people were saying it was obvious which non Tory Party to vote for and ditto every election I can ever remember.

    Pacts unofficial or otherwise have never swung an election to my knowledge. Even in 1997 the only election were tactical voting possibly had a measurable impact it was still more the nationwide swing against the Tories that election that was the real issue.

    If Labour want to win the next election then seeking a challenging position to be capable of winning it is the solution not worrying about pacts.

    Whoever wins will be the party that deserves to best, not the best pact.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
    Yes, that's the one.
    Hard to believe. Victoria was rampantly sexual. Notoriously so (which is quite odd, given the way her name is associated with prudery)

    She must occasionally have wondered about one of her prettier chamber maids.
    Maybe that is why she blocked it but needed an excuse...
    That’s actually what I’m wondering…
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,130
    @HYUFD from last post of that thread. I think we will just have to disagree and hopefully neither of us will find out who is right.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,271
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
    Yes, that's the one.
    Hard to believe. Victoria was rampantly sexual. Notoriously so (which is quite odd, given the way her name is associated with prudery)

    She must occasionally have wondered about one of her prettier chamber maids.
    Victoria liked sex but didn't like children, I gather. Something her many offspring had an issue with.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    edited January 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    This is an interesting paragraph https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1479479746085937161/photo/1

    The whole substack is actually quite interesting, if you ignore the obvious big Dom "I am never wrong-ism".

    I think Leon will enjoy the last part about Lab Leak evidence.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,378
    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Sorry: prior to the Reform Act, wasn't the franchise set at a local rather than a national level, which means that in a small number of constituencies small numbers women (usually widows) were allowed to vote.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is an interesting paragraph https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1479479746085937161/photo/1

    The whole substack is actually quite interesting, if you ignore the obvious big Dom "I am never wrong-ism".

    I think Leon will enjoy the last part about Lab Leak evidence.
    Yes. He’s reached exactly the same conclusions as me. Good man!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    edited January 2022
    Leon said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is an interesting paragraph https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1479479746085937161/photo/1

    The whole substack is actually quite interesting, if you ignore the obvious big Dom "I am never wrong-ism".

    I think Leon will enjoy the last part about Lab Leak evidence.
    Yes. He’s reached exactly the same conclusions as me. Good man!
    I quite liked this statement...

    "We have 21st Century technologies, 20th Century bureaucracies, 19th Century crisis management, pre-Bayes training for senior people in decision-making under uncertainty, and Stone Age biological instincts to kill out-groups under pressure."

    As always, Big Dom is pretty good at identifying problems, but his solutions are wreck the place, piss off everybody and then wonder why reforms aren't going smoothly.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,041
    edited January 2022
    178,250 - 2,434 - 229 deaths
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,002
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
    The absurd philosopher Foucault had a similar view.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    Patients in England on mechanical ventilation beds down to lowest level since 18-10-2021
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,293
    Even though he fell into the didn't know he was still alive category it's a shame that Sidney Poitier has died.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,095
    I have written to the Independent Advisor on Ministerial Interests.

    There are serious questions to be answered about the funding of the Downing Street flat.     https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1479471714723680260/photo/1
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,730
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Leon said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is an interesting paragraph https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1479479746085937161/photo/1

    The whole substack is actually quite interesting, if you ignore the obvious big Dom "I am never wrong-ism".

    I think Leon will enjoy the last part about Lab Leak evidence.
    Yes. He’s reached exactly the same conclusions as me. Good man!
    I quite liked this statement...

    "We have 21st Century technologies, 20th Century bureaucracies, 19th Century crisis management, pre-Bayes training for senior people in decision-making under uncertainty, and Stone Age biological instincts to kill out-groups under pressure."

    As always, Big Dom is pretty good at identifying problems, but his solutions are wreck the place, piss off everybody and then wonder why reforms aren't going smoothly.
    And for anyone who Big Dom backs as a great PM, Big Dom's endorsement would be the kiss of death.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    MrEd said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    What about with a statue?
    Wouldn't that be criminal damage?

    Maybe they could get the Coulston jury to try that one.
    Speak for yourself! I'm sure in most cases the damage would be mostly to the other party. Perhaps @Leon can advise.
    I will leave it to the expert(s).
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,041
    Interesting comments from Cummings re Guardians alleged party

    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1479481033993211905?t=-7mrC04uLXRVca_I05esAA&s=19
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    edited January 2022
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Interesting comments from Cummings re Guardians alleged party

    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1479481033993211905?t=-7mrC04uLXRVca_I05esAA&s=19

    Where as the other party, he was conveniently ill for...Anybody think there is a game being played here....just as party gate dies down a bit, up pops Big Dom, throwing out some more breadcrumbs.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Leon said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is an interesting paragraph https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1479479746085937161/photo/1

    The whole substack is actually quite interesting, if you ignore the obvious big Dom "I am never wrong-ism".

    I think Leon will enjoy the last part about Lab Leak evidence.
    Yes. He’s reached exactly the same conclusions as me. Good man!
    I quite liked this statement...

    "We have 21st Century technologies, 20th Century bureaucracies, 19th Century crisis management, pre-Bayes training for senior people in decision-making under uncertainty, and Stone Age biological instincts to kill out-groups under pressure."

    As always, Big Dom is pretty good at identifying problems, but his solutions are wreck the place, piss off everybody and then wonder why reforms aren't going smoothly.
    His point about Daszak - the creepy scientist at Wuhan - successfully avoiding all questions (let alone arrest/trial etc) is bang on. The Americans can’t do much about Chinese labs and Chinese boffins, but Daszak is a US citizen, who got US funding, and he lives in the USA

    He could be hauled in front of a Senate committee/courtroom tomorrow. Yet they don’t do it

    Which strongly suggests plenty of important people in the USA are worried as F about their possible guilt, and are quite content for the whole Covid-origin question to be airily waved away as “unknowable”

    Which is even more reason to investigate it
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,041
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Interesting comments from Cummings re Guardians alleged party

    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1479481033993211905?t=-7mrC04uLXRVca_I05esAA&s=19

    Where as the other party, he was conveniently ill for...Anybody think there is a game being played here....just as party gate dies down a bit, up pop Big Dom, throwing out some more breadcrumbs.
    And he says Carrie's presence was legitimate
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,316
    Well I've just had a bizarre experience on OJ's twitter feed. We were talking about Sidney Poitier (rip) then Aaron Bastani crashes in with what it took me a few seconds to realize was harking back to the previous chat about Tony Blair.

    "Legendary actor Sidney Poitier has died, aged 94. He became the first Black - and Bahamian - man to win the Best Actor Oscar Award in 1964. Mr Poitier was one of the last surviving major stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood cinema."

    "He was also central to the housing crisis."

    It was a very troubling few seconds.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Sorry: prior to the Reform Act, wasn't the franchise set at a local rather than a national level, which means that in a small number of constituencies small numbers women (usually widows) were allowed to vote.
    Yes, that is true. Usually they didn't vote in person.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    Leon said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Leon said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is an interesting paragraph https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1479479746085937161/photo/1

    The whole substack is actually quite interesting, if you ignore the obvious big Dom "I am never wrong-ism".

    I think Leon will enjoy the last part about Lab Leak evidence.
    Yes. He’s reached exactly the same conclusions as me. Good man!
    I quite liked this statement...

    "We have 21st Century technologies, 20th Century bureaucracies, 19th Century crisis management, pre-Bayes training for senior people in decision-making under uncertainty, and Stone Age biological instincts to kill out-groups under pressure."

    As always, Big Dom is pretty good at identifying problems, but his solutions are wreck the place, piss off everybody and then wonder why reforms aren't going smoothly.
    His point about Daszak - the creepy scientist at Wuhan - successfully avoiding all questions (let alone arrest/trial etc) is bang on. The Americans can’t do much about Chinese labs and Chinese boffins, but Daszak is a US citizen, who got US funding, and he lives in the USA

    He could be hauled in front of a Senate committee/courtroom tomorrow. Yet they don’t do it

    Which strongly suggests plenty of important people in the USA are worried as F about their possible guilt, and are quite content for the whole Covid-origin question to be airily waved away as “unknowable”

    Which is even more reason to investigate it
    You don't want to stick things like that on social media, you will get ban hammer....
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    BigRich said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    I remember being tolled that Lesbian Sex was never illegal, I never bothered to fact check that, but from what you are quoting perhaps that is correct?
    Well, it is wikipedia so take your view....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Leon said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Leon said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is an interesting paragraph https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1479479746085937161/photo/1

    The whole substack is actually quite interesting, if you ignore the obvious big Dom "I am never wrong-ism".

    I think Leon will enjoy the last part about Lab Leak evidence.
    Yes. He’s reached exactly the same conclusions as me. Good man!
    I quite liked this statement...

    "We have 21st Century technologies, 20th Century bureaucracies, 19th Century crisis management, pre-Bayes training for senior people in decision-making under uncertainty, and Stone Age biological instincts to kill out-groups under pressure."

    As always, Big Dom is pretty good at identifying problems, but his solutions are wreck the place, piss off everybody and then wonder why reforms aren't going smoothly.
    His point about Daszak - the creepy scientist at Wuhan - successfully avoiding all questions (let alone arrest/trial etc) is bang on. The Americans can’t do much about Chinese labs and Chinese boffins, but Daszak is a US citizen, who got US funding, and he lives in the USA

    He could be hauled in front of a Senate committee/courtroom tomorrow. Yet they don’t do it

    Which strongly suggests plenty of important people in the USA are worried as F about their possible guilt, and are quite content for the whole Covid-origin question to be airily waved away as “unknowable”

    Which is even more reason to investigate it
    You don't want to stick things like that on social media, you will get ban hammer....
    That’s a bit paranoid. Unless you think the Chinese avidly read PB?

    Hmm….
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    - “ In many seats it will be blindingly obvious to voters which way those opposed to the Tories should vote.”

    Indeed.

    Banff and Buchan, David Duguid Con, Vote SNP
    Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, John Lamont Con, Vote SNP
    Dumfries and Galloway, Alister Jack Con, Vote SNP
    Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, David Mundell Con, Vote SNP
    Gordon and Moray South, ? Con, Vote SNP
    West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Andrew Bowie Con, Vote SNP
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,002
    Some stats to consider for the Bairstow haters.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59912806
    ...Between the Boxing Day Test of 2013 and the final match of the home Ashes in 2019, Bairstow played in 57 of England's 73 Tests. Just five players featured more often.

    Since being dropped after that last home series against Australia - an omission that at the time felt like it could be terminal - he has been recalled on five different occasions to bat in three different positions.

    It is indicative of a career where England's constant tinkering with Bairstow's role in the side has done damage that is hard to quantify. He has batted in every position from three to eight and kept in 49 of his 80 Tests.

    He is not blameless. His rise to becoming one of the premier white-ball batters in the world also coincided with a slump in his Test form, but it is also worth remembering that only two men - Matt Prior and the great Les Ames - average more with the bat when keeping wicket in at least five Tests for England...
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Patients in England on mechanical ventilation beds down to lowest level since 18-10-2021

    Total number in London hospitals with/from covid now also falling for 2 days in a row.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,378
    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Sorry: prior to the Reform Act, wasn't the franchise set at a local rather than a national level, which means that in a small number of constituencies small numbers women (usually widows) were allowed to vote.
    Yes, that is true. Usually they didn't vote in person.
    My point was that women were not generally allowed to vote on the same basis as men prior to the Reform Act.

    It was the case that in some (just a few I believe) constituencies the head of household (assuming certain conditions were met) was entitled to vote, and in that case, if the head was a widow, then she could vote.

    But if you look at the total number of eligible voters across the UK who were women, I would be surprised if it was more than a couple of percent. And it was probably quite a lot less.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    BigRich said:

    second like...... o think of something witty!!!!!

    The English soccer team?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    On Tuesday evening on this site I made a bet with rkrkrkr, that UK hospitalisations would not exceed a rate of 3,000 a day before the end of February.

    With 3 days of extra date now out, I'm feeling very confidant in this bet/prediction.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    eek said:

    @Dominic2306
    ⁩there was a rule breaking drinks party in Downing St on 20 May 2020 (not the garden drinks that have been reported) and that there is a confirmatory email trail. A new alleged partygate scandal for Sue Gray to investigate

    He knows where the bodies are buried.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    “Even without more restrictions, Londoners are hunkering down as much as they did last Jan when the city was in Tier4.

    From The Spectator data hub:-

    data.spectator.co.uk/category/london”

    https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/1479487688973688836?s=21
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    edited January 2022
    Nigelb said:

    Some stats to consider for the Bairstow haters.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59912806
    ...Between the Boxing Day Test of 2013 and the final match of the home Ashes in 2019, Bairstow played in 57 of England's 73 Tests. Just five players featured more often.

    Since being dropped after that last home series against Australia - an omission that at the time felt like it could be terminal - he has been recalled on five different occasions to bat in three different positions.

    It is indicative of a career where England's constant tinkering with Bairstow's role in the side has done damage that is hard to quantify. He has batted in every position from three to eight and kept in 49 of his 80 Tests.

    He is not blameless. His rise to becoming one of the premier white-ball batters in the world also coincided with a slump in his Test form, but it is also worth remembering that only two men - Matt Prior and the great Les Ames - average more with the bat when keeping wicket in at least five Tests for England...

    Bairstow made a really interesting statement in his interview at the end of play. They asked him did he change anything today, and he said he worked with James Foster before the start of play to become less rigid, because he had worked so hard on becoming "solid" for ODIs.

    It made think more and more about what Liam Livingstone showed to KP about being a great T20 batsmen. It is so much more like being a home run hitter in baseball. A solid base, big backlift and wind up to hit the ball. The problem with that is test cricket, the catchers, the moving ball, and its a massive net negative to get out quickly (where as T20, you need to score quickly or get off the shitter).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,953
    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Back to @dixiedean and the fact that up to the Reform Act, women could technically vote. A similar-ish thing with regards to gay rights. It was only in 1885 that male homosexual relationships were explicitly made illegal (although they were covered in practice before that). In fact the sodomy laws were a bit of a mess....

    "The definition of sodomy was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either

    anal intercourse or oral intercourse by a man with a man or woman or
    vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

    but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse", the implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery."

    Isn’t that the Act where - apocryphally - Queen Victoria struck out any reference to lesbians, on the grounds that she refused to believe such a thing existed
    Yes, that's the one.
    Hard to believe. Victoria was rampantly sexual. Notoriously so (which is quite odd, given the way her name is associated with prudery)

    She must occasionally have wondered about one of her prettier chamber maids.
    Victoria liked sex but didn't like children, I gather. Something her many offspring had an issue with.
    That was, and still is, not a unique thing. Some people love other people's kids, but don't like, or even hate, their own. A famous children's writer (Enid Blyton?) was allegedly in this camp.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,041
    edited January 2022
    StuartDickson said:

    eek said:

    @Dominic2306
    ⁩there was a rule breaking drinks party in Downing St on 20 May 2020 (not the garden drinks that have been reported) and that there is a confirmatory email trail. A new alleged partygate scandal for Sue Gray to investigate

    He knows where the bodies are buried.
    But not apparently at the Guardians photo which according to Cummings was legitimate as was Carrie's presence
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,675
    Leon said:

    “Even without more restrictions, Londoners are hunkering down as much as they did last Jan when the city was in Tier4.

    From The Spectator data hub:-

    data.spectator.co.uk/category/london”

    https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/1479487688973688836?s=21

    We had to cancel tonight's drinks because 4 out of 7 people have got the rona. Rescheduled to next week!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    “Even without more restrictions, Londoners are hunkering down as much as they did last Jan when the city was in Tier4.

    From The Spectator data hub:-

    data.spectator.co.uk/category/london”

    https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/1479487688973688836?s=21

    We had to cancel tonight's drinks because 4 out of 7 people have got the rona. Rescheduled to next week!
    Will the last person who hasn't got or had COVID in London please report to the front desk....
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,706
    kinabalu said:

    Well I've just had a bizarre experience on OJ's twitter feed. We were talking about Sidney Poitier (rip) then Aaron Bastani crashes in with what it took me a few seconds to realize was harking back to the previous chat about Tony Blair.

    "Legendary actor Sidney Poitier has died, aged 94. He became the first Black - and Bahamian - man to win the Best Actor Oscar Award in 1964. Mr Poitier was one of the last surviving major stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood cinema."

    "He was also central to the housing crisis."

    It was a very troubling few seconds.

    Harry Belafonte is still with us at 94.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Patients in England on mechanical ventilation beds down to lowest level since 18-10-2021

    Clearly then Omicron does not affect the lungs in anywhere near the same way as the previous variants, so what are people being admitted to hospital for if its with Omicron
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 34,143
    NerysHughes said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Patients in England on mechanical ventilation beds down to lowest level since 18-10-2021

    Clearly then Omicron does not affect the lungs in anywhere near the same way as the previous variants, so what are people being admitted to hospital for if its with Omicron
    Thank you Doctor.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,062
    Scott_xP said:

    I have written to the Independent Advisor on Ministerial Interests.

    There are serious questions to be answered about the funding of the Downing Street flat.     https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1479471714723680260/photo/1

    In due course, I expect Boris to award gongs to the Colston 4 and to Djokovic. They have played a sterling role in diverting attention from his correspondence with Lord Geidt.

    Seriously, are people not bothered with what has gone on here? The letters published yesterday between Geidt and Boris are truly shocking, and I'm pretty unshockable. How Geidt hasn't resigned is beyond me. (Of course I wouldn't expect Boris to resign for his appalling mendacity).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    UK cases by specimen date scaled to 100K

    image
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,480
    Leon said:

    As we are FINALLY TALKING ABOUT BOTTOMS, at least in the fine arts, here is one of my favourites. A Portrait of Louise O’Murphy, by Boucher



    I saw a television drama doc where they found this model and made this painting, the actress had an even better bottom and longer more slender legs.

    I’ve been obsessed by the female nude just about all my life. Painted millions And I have posed, but never like this though, that pose is just so naughty. But it makes beautiful painting from this angle.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    Local R

    image
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    iSAGE want unis to go back to online only and everybody to self-test every time you leave the house.....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    Third doses to go - England and Scotland

    8.9 million overall
    1.9 million for the over 50s

    image
  • eekeek Posts: 31,209
    Labour MP Jack Dromey died suddenly in his flat in Birmingham on Friday morning, a statement issued on behalf of the 73-year-old shadow minister’s family said
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    A good, provocative thread


    “Has anyone written on the convergence of social symptoms starting first in the USSR of the 1980s and also the United States of the 2010s?

    - High mortality from drug overuse
    - Crashing sub-replacement fertility
    - Gerontocracy
    - Geopolitical retreat

    List some more!”

    https://twitter.com/samoburja/status/1479041614140125187?s=21

    As someone says, one obvious addition is

    “Chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan”

    And Woke = Marxism. Parroting politically correct gibberish so you don’t get fired, even tho you know it’s drivel
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,316
    Leon said:

    turbotubbs said:

    Leon said:

    As we are FINALLY TALKING ABOUT BOTTOMS, at least in the fine arts, here is one of my favourites. A Portrait of Louise O’Murphy, by Boucher



    Surely the greatest trick that artists through the ages pulled, was that the best art was the human nude, and so they just had to stare at beautiful young ladies sans covering, for hour after hour, day after day...
    I had a girlfriend with a figure as pleasing as O’Murphy’s. And she also loved that painting

    I asked a female photographer to take some photos of my GF, in that pose. The photographer turned out to be a lesbian, so she got quite unexpectedly excited (but restrained herself)

    The photos are much cherished
    Save them in a fire before your hamster?
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,602
    Ventilated patients at lowest level since Mid October.

    Getting pretty untenable to say that we have anything other than an isolation rules induced staffing crisis at this point.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    Cases summary

    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    Hospitals

    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    Deaths

    image
    image
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    iSAGE want unis to go back to online only and everybody to self-test every time you leave the house.....

    They have shares in LFT manufacturers?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    Age related data

    image
    image
    image
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,062
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some stats to consider for the Bairstow haters.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59912806
    ...Between the Boxing Day Test of 2013 and the final match of the home Ashes in 2019, Bairstow played in 57 of England's 73 Tests. Just five players featured more often.

    Since being dropped after that last home series against Australia - an omission that at the time felt like it could be terminal - he has been recalled on five different occasions to bat in three different positions.

    It is indicative of a career where England's constant tinkering with Bairstow's role in the side has done damage that is hard to quantify. He has batted in every position from three to eight and kept in 49 of his 80 Tests.

    He is not blameless. His rise to becoming one of the premier white-ball batters in the world also coincided with a slump in his Test form, but it is also worth remembering that only two men - Matt Prior and the great Les Ames - average more with the bat when keeping wicket in at least five Tests for England...

    Bairstow made a really interesting statement in his interview at the end of play. They asked him did he change anything today, and he said he worked with James Foster before the start of play to become less rigid, because he had worked so hard on becoming "solid" for ODIs.

    It made think more and more about what Liam Livingstone showed to KP about being a great T20 batsmen. It is so much more like being a home run hitter in baseball. A solid base, big backlift and wind up to hit the ball. The problem with that is test cricket, the catchers, the moving ball, and its a massive net negative to get out quickly (where as T20, you need to score quickly or get off the shitter).
    That's a really good point. Watch Kane Williamson, Babar Azam and, to a lesser extent, Root. They wait for the ball and play it really late so that they can adjust if it swings. By contrast, the one-day biffers attack the ball in, as Bairstow says, a rigid manner.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,331
    By-election pending in Birmingham.

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/1479490627926691844
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    Health Secretary Sajid Javid has been visiting King's College Hospital in London today and has spoken to the media after his visit.

    He says the UK is in a better position than it was at the same time last year, pointing to vaccinations, antiviral treatments and testing.

    But he adds: "Despite all of that we are still seeing rising hospitalisations, particularly with the case rate rising with older age groups - that is of concern. And I think we have to be honest when we look at the NHS and say it will be a rocky few weeks ahead."

    The health secretary once again calls on people to get vaccinated, adding that staff at King's College estimate around 70% of Covid patients are unvaccinated.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,498
    Leon said:

    His point about Daszak - the creepy scientist at Wuhan - successfully avoiding all questions (let alone arrest/trial etc) is bang on. The Americans can’t do much about Chinese labs and Chinese boffins, but Daszak is a US citizen, who got US funding, and he lives in the USA

    He could be hauled in front of a Senate committee/courtroom tomorrow. Yet they don’t do it

    Which strongly suggests plenty of important people in the USA are worried as F about their possible guilt, and are quite content for the whole Covid-origin question to be airily waved away as “unknowable”

    Which is even more reason to investigate it

    Did you see this? A suspected Delta lab-leak from a BSL3 laboratory in Taiwan.

    https://fortune.com/2021/12/10/taiwan-investigates-covid-lab-leak-scientist-tests-positive-bite-infected-mouse/

    Far too many people act as though lab-leaks of dangerous viruses can't happen.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    North East

    image
    image
    image
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    MoonRabbit said:

    Leon said:

    As we are FINALLY TALKING ABOUT BOTTOMS, at least in the fine arts, here is one of my favourites. A Portrait of Louise O’Murphy, by Boucher



    I saw a television drama doc where they found this model and made this painting, the actress had an even better bottom and longer more slender legs.

    I’ve been obsessed by the female nude just about all my life. Painted millions And I have posed, but never like this though, that pose is just so naughty. But it makes beautiful painting from this angle.
    It is a sensationally erotic painting. One of the sexiest ever. Yet in its way quite innocent. Not “pornographic”

    My ex arguably had a peachier bottom than O’Murphy, and longer legs, likewise. No wonder the photographer got quite hot under her Sapphic collar
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    Northern_Al said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some stats to consider for the Bairstow haters.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59912806
    ...Between the Boxing Day Test of 2013 and the final match of the home Ashes in 2019, Bairstow played in 57 of England's 73 Tests. Just five players featured more often.

    Since being dropped after that last home series against Australia - an omission that at the time felt like it could be terminal - he has been recalled on five different occasions to bat in three different positions.

    It is indicative of a career where England's constant tinkering with Bairstow's role in the side has done damage that is hard to quantify. He has batted in every position from three to eight and kept in 49 of his 80 Tests.

    He is not blameless. His rise to becoming one of the premier white-ball batters in the world also coincided with a slump in his Test form, but it is also worth remembering that only two men - Matt Prior and the great Les Ames - average more with the bat when keeping wicket in at least five Tests for England...

    Bairstow made a really interesting statement in his interview at the end of play. They asked him did he change anything today, and he said he worked with James Foster before the start of play to become less rigid, because he had worked so hard on becoming "solid" for ODIs.

    It made think more and more about what Liam Livingstone showed to KP about being a great T20 batsmen. It is so much more like being a home run hitter in baseball. A solid base, big backlift and wind up to hit the ball. The problem with that is test cricket, the catchers, the moving ball, and its a massive net negative to get out quickly (where as T20, you need to score quickly or get off the shitter).
    That's a really good point. Watch Kane Williamson, Babar Azam and, to a lesser extent, Root. They wait for the ball and play it really late so that they can adjust if it swings. By contrast, the one-day biffers attack the ball in, as Bairstow says, a rigid manner.
    I remember the very first time I heard a commentator talking about Root's batting in his first or second test, and he kept on going on about how late Root hit the ball.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,953
    RIP Jack Dromey. Thoughts to Harriet Harman and their children as well.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,429
    Northern_Al said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some stats to consider for the Bairstow haters.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59912806
    ...Between the Boxing Day Test of 2013 and the final match of the home Ashes in 2019, Bairstow played in 57 of England's 73 Tests. Just five players featured more often.

    Since being dropped after that last home series against Australia - an omission that at the time felt like it could be terminal - he has been recalled on five different occasions to bat in three different positions.

    It is indicative of a career where England's constant tinkering with Bairstow's role in the side has done damage that is hard to quantify. He has batted in every position from three to eight and kept in 49 of his 80 Tests.

    He is not blameless. His rise to becoming one of the premier white-ball batters in the world also coincided with a slump in his Test form, but it is also worth remembering that only two men - Matt Prior and the great Les Ames - average more with the bat when keeping wicket in at least five Tests for England...

    Bairstow made a really interesting statement in his interview at the end of play. They asked him did he change anything today, and he said he worked with James Foster before the start of play to become less rigid, because he had worked so hard on becoming "solid" for ODIs.

    It made think more and more about what Liam Livingstone showed to KP about being a great T20 batsmen. It is so much more like being a home run hitter in baseball. A solid base, big backlift and wind up to hit the ball. The problem with that is test cricket, the catchers, the moving ball, and its a massive net negative to get out quickly (where as T20, you need to score quickly or get off the shitter).
    That's a really good point. Watch Kane Williamson, Babar Azam and, to a lesser extent, Root. They wait for the ball and play it really late so that they can adjust if it swings. By contrast, the one-day biffers attack the ball in, as Bairstow says, a rigid manner.
    If you watch Stokes in test cricket he now has this habit of exaggerated movement around the crease early in his innings. Its as if he is trying to ensure he doesn't go into the auto-pilot of big biffer mode.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851
    StuartDickson said:

    BigRich said:

    second like...... o think of something witty!!!!!

    The English soccer team?
    Guffaw. Says a Scotsman. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,293
    Leon said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    Leon said:

    As we are FINALLY TALKING ABOUT BOTTOMS, at least in the fine arts, here is one of my favourites. A Portrait of Louise O’Murphy, by Boucher



    I saw a television drama doc where they found this model and made this painting, the actress had an even better bottom and longer more slender legs.

    I’ve been obsessed by the female nude just about all my life. Painted millions And I have posed, but never like this though, that pose is just so naughty. But it makes beautiful painting from this angle.
    It is a sensationally erotic painting. One of the sexiest ever. Yet in its way quite innocent. Not “pornographic”

    My ex arguably had a peachier bottom than O’Murphy, and longer legs, likewise. No wonder the photographer got quite hot under her Sapphic collar
    What were the telltale signs that the photographer was so desirous. And are you absolutely sure that it wasn't really you she was lusting after.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,820
    COVID Summary

    - Cases still rising. R is coming down, a lot, though

    image

    - Admissions are flat or going down overall.

    image

    even in the North East, which has the highest case rises, the admissions are following this pattern

    - Mechanical ventilator numbers are flat
    - Deaths are rising slightly.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,002
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    “Even without more restrictions, Londoners are hunkering down as much as they did last Jan when the city was in Tier4.

    From The Spectator data hub:-

    data.spectator.co.uk/category/london”

    https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/1479487688973688836?s=21

    We had to cancel tonight's drinks because 4 out of 7 people have got the rona. Rescheduled to next week!
    Same here with a dinner which was to have been tonight.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,985
    JosiasJessop said:

    RIP Jack Dromey. Thoughts to Harriet Harman and their children as well.

    Just seen it on the BBC. RIP
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    glw said:

    Leon said:

    His point about Daszak - the creepy scientist at Wuhan - successfully avoiding all questions (let alone arrest/trial etc) is bang on. The Americans can’t do much about Chinese labs and Chinese boffins, but Daszak is a US citizen, who got US funding, and he lives in the USA

    He could be hauled in front of a Senate committee/courtroom tomorrow. Yet they don’t do it

    Which strongly suggests plenty of important people in the USA are worried as F about their possible guilt, and are quite content for the whole Covid-origin question to be airily waved away as “unknowable”

    Which is even more reason to investigate it

    Did you see this? A suspected Delta lab-leak from a BSL3 laboratory in Taiwan.

    https://fortune.com/2021/12/10/taiwan-investigates-covid-lab-leak-scientist-tests-positive-bite-infected-mouse/

    Far too many people act as though lab-leaks of dangerous viruses can't happen.
    Yes indeed. Which makes the successful suppression of the lab leak hypothesis - as a “racist conspiracy” - for at least a year, all the more remarkable, and outrageous

    They acted like it was an insane concept - a virus leaking from a lab! No way! - and anyone who voiced the possibility was a crackpot Trumpite

    Quintessential gaslighting

    I confess it worked on me, for a while. My initial assumption when the virus first emerged was Oh it must have come from the lab. The coincidence was just too much. This was, let it be noted, the initial assumption of the Chinese scientist who runs the lab - batwoman Shi - she thought “Christ what if it got out of my lab” and she rushed back from Shanghai to “check”. So it was not an absurd theory to HER

    Then the Lancet letter came out and everyone denounced the hypothesis and I thought “well they must know what they’re talking about”

    A couple of months later the doubts began. THAT virus in THAT city with THAT lab? Etc
  • LeonLeon Posts: 65,035
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    Leon said:

    As we are FINALLY TALKING ABOUT BOTTOMS, at least in the fine arts, here is one of my favourites. A Portrait of Louise O’Murphy, by Boucher



    I saw a television drama doc where they found this model and made this painting, the actress had an even better bottom and longer more slender legs.

    I’ve been obsessed by the female nude just about all my life. Painted millions And I have posed, but never like this though, that pose is just so naughty. But it makes beautiful painting from this angle.
    It is a sensationally erotic painting. One of the sexiest ever. Yet in its way quite innocent. Not “pornographic”

    My ex arguably had a peachier bottom than O’Murphy, and longer legs, likewise. No wonder the photographer got quite hot under her Sapphic collar
    What were the telltale signs that the photographer was so desirous. And are you absolutely sure that it wasn't really you she was lusting after.
    It’s a bit early for the technical details
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025