The Saturday open thread – politicalbetting.com

DougSeal said:

IshmaelZ said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Phil said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

A reminder that "cultural Marxism" is an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

That’s an incredibly biased article. People like Adorno and Marcuse were very influential, not “impotent professors issuing scarcely comprehensible jeremiads”, and it is simply false that the term “cultural Marxism” originated on the far-right.

The right does have a long history of taking terms of art from the left & turning them into sticks to beat the left with.

Pace “political correctness” for instance, which was originally a leftist in-joke IIRC. It wouldn’t at all surprise me if the idea of “Cultural Marxism” was a term of art in a subset of the academic left that was turned into something else & then massively amplified by right-wing talking heads (talk radio in the 90s? purveyors of those insane right-wing mailshots in the US?) looking to create the next left-wing boogeyman.

If your goal is to keep your followers in a permanent state of perceived threat to their way of life, then you need to create the enemy in their heads. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s real or not, or how widespread the reality is. What’s important (from the right’s POV) is that it’s real in the heads of right-wing followers. Look at Leon & “wokeism”. “Woke” can be real, but Leon’s frothing reaction to it is out of all proportion with that reality because he’s not taking his cues from the actual left, but from the right-wing commentators creating narratives for their own purposes, sometimes out of whole cloth & sometimes by cherry picking bits and pieces from left discource & piecing them together into a monster to frighten & dismay.

If, at this stage in your life, you still think “Woke” is just a made-up scary monster, then there is no hope for you

There are 17 year old girls out there with double mastectomies because Woke believes gender is a “social construct” just like race

Gender and race *are* social constructs. Sex is biological. Cats and invertibrates have sexes, they don't have genders.

So you think skin colour is just a social construct? It has no actual reality?

The Woke tell us, simultaneously, that race is a biological fiction, a nullity, a construct in our heads, while absolutely obsessing about skin
colour - a fact of human variation which, to my amateur eyes, looks decidedly real

So race exists yet doesn’t exist. Schrodinger says Hi

Hair and eye colour are “decidedly real”. As is
height. However western societies have not historically erected significant legal and cultural barriers on participation based on eye colour, hair colour (ginger jokes notwithstanding) or height. They have on skin colour.

Take drama. A somewhat trivial, but easy to understand, example is the fact that people bitched and moaned about actors in the Soarse Ronan/Margot Robbie vehicle ‘Mary Queen of Scots’ being the “wrong” skin colour for that period of British history, while failing to care that Irish actress Ronan had the wrong accent for the French raised Scottish Queen she was playing, and Australian actress Robbie the wrong hair colour, height and practically everything else for the English Queen she was portraying, shows that certain “decidedly real” factors (accent, hair colour, eye colour, age, nationality) matter far less to our society than skin colour. You’re white, you get a pass on your appearance. If you’re black, you don’t. Skin colour matters.

A black English actor would get massive pushback in playing an English historical figure on the basis of “historical accuracy”. A white actor of any nationality, even if he or she had virtually no similarity to the personage portrayed (hair, eyes, accent, height - all ‘decidedly real’) would not. Imagine the outcry if, say, Thandiwe Newton had been cast as Elizabeth I instead of Robbie. It it that kind of difference in treatment of a superficial appearance that is the societal construct.

Drama is just the (relatively minor) example I have used here. The same difference in treatment throughout society is “decidedly real”. The people you patronisingly condemn as “woke” are, often clumsily trying to correct.


I think you know all this really but enjoy the drama.

That last drama is unfortunately ambiguous

There's black actors in The Great playing courtiers who were actually white and I have to say I was surprised to find how ok I was with that. They are actors not imposters.

bondegezou said:

Chris said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Phil said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

A reminder that "cultural Marxism" is an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

That’s an incredibly biased article. People like Adorno and Marcuse were very influential, not “impotent professors issuing scarcely comprehensible jeremiads”, and it is simply false that the term “cultural Marxism” originated on the far-right.

The right does have a long history of taking terms of art from the left & turning them into sticks to beat the left with.

Pace “political correctness” for instance, which was originally a leftist in-joke IIRC. It wouldn’t at all surprise me if the idea of “Cultural Marxism” was a term of art in a subset of the academic left that was turned into something else & then massively amplified by right-wing talking heads (talk radio in the 90s? purveyors of those insane right-wing mailshots in the US?) looking to create the next left-wing boogeyman.

If your goal is to keep your followers in a permanent state of perceived threat to their way of life, then you need to create the enemy in their heads. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s real or not, or how widespread the reality is. What’s important (from the right’s POV) is that it’s real in the heads of right-wing followers. Look at Leon & “wokeism”. “Woke” can be real, but Leon’s frothing reaction to it is out of all proportion with that reality because he’s not taking his cues from the actual left, but from the right-wing commentators creating narratives for their own purposes, sometimes out of whole cloth & sometimes by cherry picking bits and pieces from left discource & piecing them together into a monster to frighten & dismay.

If, at this stage in your life, you still think “Woke” is just a made-up scary monster, then there is no hope for you

There are 17 year old girls out there with double mastectomies because Woke believes gender is a “social construct” just like race

Gender and race *are* social constructs. Sex is biological. Cats and invertibrates have sexes, they don't have genders.

So you think skin colour is just a social construct? It has no actual reality?

The Woke tell us, simultaneously, that race is a biological fiction, a nullity, a construct in our heads, while absolutely obsessing about skin
colour - a fact of human variation which, to my amateur eyes, looks decidedly real

So race exists yet doesn’t exist. Schrodinger says Hi

Hair and eye colour are “decidedly real”. As is
height. However western societies have not historically erected significant legal and cultural barriers on participation based on eye colour, hair colour (ginger jokes notwithstanding) or height. They have on skin colour.

Take drama. A somewhat trivial, but easy to understand, example is the fact that people bitched and moaned about actors in the Soarse Ronan/Margot Robbie vehicle ‘Mary Queen of Scots’ being the “wrong” skin colour for that period of British history, while failing to care that Irish actress Ronan had the wrong accent for the French raised Scottish Queen she was playing, and Australian actress Robbie the wrong hair colour, height and practically everything else for the English Queen she was portraying, shows that certain “decidedly real” factors (accent, hair colour, eye colour, age, nationality) matter far less to our society than skin colour. You’re white, you get a pass on your appearance. If you’re black, you don’t. Skin colour matters.

A black English actor would get massive pushback in playing an English historical figure on the basis of “historical accuracy”. A white actor of any nationality, even if he or she had virtually no similarity to the personage portrayed (hair, eyes, accent, height - all ‘decidedly real’) would not. Imagine the outcry if, say, Thandiwe Newton had been cast as Elizabeth I instead of Robbie. It it that kind of difference in treatment of a superficial appearance that is the societal construct.

Drama is just the (relatively minor) example I have used here. The same difference in treatment throughout society is “decidedly real”. The people you patronisingly condemn as “woke” are, often clumsily trying to correct.

I think you know all this really but enjoy the drama.

It isn't just relatively minor, it's ridiculous. If the actress playing Mary used (or just had) an accent that jarred with widely known fact, she deserves to be criticised. Margot Robbie afaik wore a wig and make up to make her colouring match Elizabeth's. Most are not familiar with the height of historical figures (unless from the recent past), so most would find that unimportant. If a thin actor played Henry VIII without padding, that would be an issue. Making Sir Walter Raleigh (or whoever) black is such a change, and would pull most of the viewers right out of the reality of the world portrayed in the film, assuming even a
basic knowledge of British and world history. We don't cast white actors in black historical roles for the same reason.

We must have been very Woke at our school. In 1982, when I was aged 7 (and in my only acting credit to date!), I played one of the Three Kings in a nativity play, and the other two were played by a black boy and a white boy!

It is generally accepted that one of the Three Kings was Black.

Pretty remarkable, considering the only thing the source material says is that they came from the East!

The Bible doesn’t call them Kings and doesn’t even say how many there were. There are traditions, dating back to the middle to late first millennium perhaps, in western Christianity that there were 3 of them, that they were Kings, and that one is from Persia, one is from India and the last is from Arabia or Ethiopia (and is thus black). However, traditions vary. There is a Syriac Christian tradition that there were 12 of them.

There are very few Biblical traditions suggesting Jesus was blond, blue eyed and clean shaven. Indeed he wasn’t. Yet casting a blond, blue eyed actor to play him has never been an issue. Cast a black man, or even a Palestinian (who would likely fit the bill better than most) and watch the sparks fly. This idea of “historical realism” is BS. Our culture can suspend disbelief, apparently, when it comes to everything but skin colour.

StuartDickson said:

RandallFlagg said:

Is it just me, or do Scot Nats dislike Starmer way more than they did either Milliband or Magic Grandpa?
I mean it's not just on PB. Wasn't Tommy Shephard saying some bollocks in the National about how Starmer was the worst Labour leader ever the other day?
My guess is because unlike the previous two leaders, they fear Starmer is going to win and get Labour back in office, which they very much don't want.

I, like approx one third of Scots, would prefer a PM Starmer to a PM Truss. If we choose to stay in the Union.

Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? - Scotland

Liz Truss 19%
Keir Starmer 34%
Not sure 43%
Refused 5%

(YouGov/The Times; 4-5 August)

What makes Starmer so unpalatable, compared to previous Labour leaders, is his ‘Muscular Unionism’. Just another term for bullying.

stodge said:

FrankBooth said:

The Ukrainian view - and Zelensky's spokesman does a daily broadcast - is that Russia desperately wants a ceasefire because they know they're in big trouble - make of that what you will. I'd be astonished if the Ukrainians agreed to it. I wouldn't even bet on it if the west withdrew all military support and unaffected by Russia's gas stoppage the US will carry on regardless.

I believe the Russians currently occupy 20% of the Ukraine (including presumably Crimea). What we are probably looking at (short of any surprise escalation which you can never rule out) is a point whether neither side can lose and neither side can win and that's probably where we are now.

It may well be the conflict will drag on for months at a lower level (still plenty of death and destruction) without significant progress on either side. Zelenskyy's perfectly reasonable demand is the complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukrainian territory - that seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Except we have Crimea which we all think of as part of the Ukraine but Russia sees differently. That is the stumbling block - I suspect Putin could throw Donetsk and Lubansk under the bus (possibly continuing to tacitly support post-war guerrilla activity?) but to give up Sebastopol would be too much of a personal political humiliation.

The problem is without a resolution to the Crimea issue the rest of it remains unresolved.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

turbotubbs said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The problem isn't the Tory party, its the voters. People want contradictory things but refuse to accept there is a contradiction. A series of events have empowered them to believe their genuine ignorance on a subject holds the same weight as actual knowledge and experience. They aren't wrong, the experts are wrong.

There is a way through though - find us a new Blair or Thatcher, someone who does know what they are talking about and has political umph. People said "that is Boris" but as all but the remaining holdouts now accept Boris stood for nothing, with no great policies delivered and settled in his time.

Ummm, BoZo was the politician more than any other in my lifetime that told voters they could have contradictory things. Denied the contradictions. That experts were to be derided.

He was the problem

The fact his opponents failed to make their case shows how poor they were

Not entirely.

If you are in a debate with someone shameless and dishonest enough, it can be really hard to persuade an audience.

It tends to go this;

BORIS-ALIKE Something involving cake and eat it

RORY-ALIKE (because he at least tried) That's not possible- once you have eaten your cake, it's gone...

BORIS-ALIKE There you go, with your doomy gloomy negativity. Remember we are Great Britain! We are being held back by your fears... (Continues ad nauseum.)

Boris style cakeism is a really attractive prospectus. It's awfully hard to argue against, because deep down we want it to be true, and want to believe that there's some meanie stopping it being true for us. That's been the case since the apple/snake/Eve fiasco in Genesis.

It would have been better for the UK had someone successfully argued us out of Borisism, but I'm not convinced that was possible.

It would have been better for the Conservatives and the UK to have not fallen for Borisism, but that required human nature to be something it isn't.

The culpability for (gestures round) all of this belongs with the clique who proposed it, who lied to the public about it, who smeared and deposed those who questioned it.

Not particularly with those who fell for it, and certainly not with those who did their best to argue against it.

Unless you had a better plan to argue against Boris, in which case I'm all ears.

And unless he didn't vote for the Conservatives when Mr Johnson was their leader.

I want to make this clear

I supported Johnson on brexit, covid and Ukraine but he lost me from Paterson onwards

Starmer would have had our economy in lockdown forever if he could, and it is to Johnson's credit he opened the economy when he did

That's a very silly thing to write. Starmer wanted us "in lockdown forever"?

Profoundly stupid read of the situation that isn't worthy of yours usual sage analysis.

Forever is a stretch, but Starmer was ALWAYS on the side of more and longer restrictions.

I accept forever was one of my rather exaggerated comments but there is no doubt Starmer favoured a much stricter and longer lockdown and it was Johnson who made the correct decision and it has been proven as the right thing to do

It is rather hot and I apologise for my exaggeration

Boris caused longer lockdowns by always being slow to initiate a lockdown. Had we acted promptly, we would have better controlled infection rates and could’ve come out of lockdown sooner. It’s yet more short term thinking.

Oh what nonsense. Claimed by people who want to justify lockdowns. Taking away civil liberties as a precautionary measure is unacceptable and the virus would still be prevalent on our continent after any lockdown it wasn't a magic pill that would get rid of it.

What country in Europe successfully had a short, sharp lockdown that was rapidly ended and not repeated?

I can in hindsight point at a country and say we should have done that, Sweden. Can you name any country that had a rapid premature lockdown that worked, fixed things and meant coming out of lockdown sooner?

Following the Swedish model would have been utterly catastrophic. Look at their death rates compared to their immediate neighbours. Thousands of additional people died in Sweden who did not need to because of the route they chose. And that is in spite of the fact that far more people in Sweden work from home anyway so the effects of a lockdown would have been considerably less on their economy.

Many - if not all - European countries got their policies wrong in the pandemic in one way or another. Sweden is certainly no exception.

Thousands extra dying, almost all of whom would have died soon anyway, is better than stripping tens of millions of two years of civil liberties, trashing education and development for years that will have consequences for generations to come, spending hundreds of billions and creating NHS waiting lists for years to come.

The price we paid to keep people alive was not a price worth paying. There's more to life than a mortuary league table.

If the vulnerable wishes to shield that should be there prerogative but not at the price of trashing children's education etc

Bolded: incorrect, and pointed out to you repeatedly before.

Half of those in ICUs were under 60.
A quarter were under 50.

Using averages of deaths is as irrelevant as using the average age of people locked down (which was over 40, so why are we worrying about childrens education when none of them are anywhere near 40. Which would be an absurd argument, but is just as true).

Over 13,000 children lost a parent to covid. Under your plan, that number would be several times higher. And we'd still have had a large (if not larger) economic impact.

In ICU doesn't mean dead.

Some extra casualties is still better than the alternative. Life is for living, even if some people die, we all die eventually.

Shutting down life in fear of death was not a price worth paying. Simply saying "more would die" isn't an argument winner against someone saying death is acceptable.

People go to ICU when there's a very significant chance that they could die without the assistance.
Should there be no more capacity in ICU, no-one else could go to ICU.
Those who would have survived with ICU assistance would therefore be dead.

Even "lesser" hospitalisation would see far more dead without hospital assistance. It's a key reason we have hospitals and healthcare in the first place.

Both ICUs and hospitals were maxed out and beyond maxed out. It was the hospital loadings and ICU loadings that governed the call for lockdowns.

Yes, it's true that everyone dies. We do consider it civilized to minimize avoidable deaths. We could close the deficit and cut taxes hugely at a stroke by abolishing all healthcare spending and pension spending, for example, on the grounds that yes, loads of people would die due to lack of healthcare and/or starve to death in old age, but hey - people die, right?

That is, to me, an absurd case to make, but not far off of your argument.

You're right its not far off the argument and make it less ridiculous and its not unreasonable either.

A budget should be available to the NHS for healthcare and the best available treatment based upon what is affordable - the NHS should not have a blank cheque.

If the NHS not having a blank cheque means more die and fewer receive pensions, then so be it. We can't afford to keep everyone alive forever, nor should we.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

wooliedyed said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

@Flatlander

I, likewise, have been examining that UFO photo again. As have many people on Twitter

Your “rock in a loch” hypothesis is still reasonable, but it has flaws. The location cited doesn’t fit. No bodies of water. The airplane is not a reflection? The rock isn’t credible in its angularity. And no ripples? At all?

To get to a rock in a loch you have to presume:

1 quite a lot of people conspiring over decades. Why?

2 an element of photographic manipulation. Which the one pro analysis we have - the photographic prof at Sheffield Hallam - says has not happened

I note that Debunker General Mick West is unusually hesitant to pronounce. It’s a tricky one

It takes four years at light speed to get to Earth from Alpha Centauri.

No, it doesnt. Time experienced by those doing the travelling is much less as you approach light speed. Time dilation. If you even travel by such prosaic means.

The spaceship will take four years, same with the light from the stars of the Centauri system.

StuartDickson said:

Scott_xP said:

StuartDickson said:

Successful political movements learn from defeat and change and bounce back.

Like the SNP

Having been gubbed in 2014, their cunning plan is to do it again...

You’re a rare brave Unionist. Most of your colleagues are too scared to even pose the question.

Not sure I’d call 45% “gubbed”. I’d say that it is a tremendous base to build on.

StuartDickson said:

Which European countries are most vulnerable to surging energy prices?
- It’s better to be a consumer in Sweden than Britain

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/08/11/which-european-countries-are-most-vulnerable-to-surging-energy-prices

That graph is shocking: the poorest 20% in England & her satellite states are going to get absolutely hammered compared to the richest 20%.

While the poor suffer more than the rich nearly everywhere, they are better protected in France, Italy, Germany etc

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

The Russians and Ukrainians have both ruled out a ceasefire or even resumption of negotiations, and I suspect that the Kherson counter-offensive needs to either succeed or fail by autumn before anyone's willing to talk. Not much seems to be happening at present except for artillery barrages and isolated spectacular hits, but Ukraine is clearly going to try to take Kherson by end-September.

A deadlock is a good thing in most wars unless one wants to hang on for total victory for one or the other side with unlimited human suffering along the way - failing that, there needs to come a point where both sides acknowledge that they're getting nowhere at huge cost. It's up to Ukraine as the injured party, but we should not be seeking to prolong the conflict.

An arrangement where Ukraine has sovereignty but Russia has a 99-year lease on Crimea and the pre-2014 Donbas area could probably be reached without anyone being overthrown - the invasion would have failed to gain any ground, giving Putin an obvious lesson that invasions don't work, but nobody would have won outright, avoiding seeding the ground for revanchism into future decades.

The Donbass and Crimea were not Russian. Giving them a lease (*) just allows them to undertake more of the ethnic cleansing they have been doing in Crimea and the Donbass - and in the parts of Ukraine they have controlled since February. It allows them to build up more troops and weapons in those areas.

Your 'answer' rewards Russian aggression, because they gain from it. As someone who is supposedly interested in peace, how does your 'answer' prevent or deter Russia, or other states, starting such adventures?

Besides, have you not noticed Russia's grand plans for the entire region? Their talk of taking over almost the entirety of eastern Europe? How does your 'answer' deter them from that?

It is extremely naive.

(*) Crimea was leased to Russia...

Fairliered said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

Which European countries are most vulnerable to surging energy prices?
- It’s better to be a consumer in Sweden than Britain

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/08/11/which-european-countries-are-most-vulnerable-to-surging-energy-prices

That graph is shocking: the poorest 20% in England & her satellite states are going to get absolutely hammered compared to the richest 20%.

While the poor suffer more than the rich nearly everywhere, they are better protected in France, Italy, Germany etc

Isn't the greatest per capita consumption of energy in Scandinavia?
I am sure someone will find a graph that shows this.
Clearing the roads of snow (for hundreds and hundreds of kilometres) and heating 200-300 sqm houses favoured by the most people through minus 30 degree winters is bound to use up vast amounts of energy, mainly oil and gas.
It seems to me like, if you go through Sweden or Finland - which I have done a lot; much of it is actually also suburban sprawl. They have never built to any density because of the unlimited supply of land.
This sprawl just goes on for miles. House after house (200-300 sqm) with 3-4 cars.
Also... limited use of public transport. So the trains are empty and cost little or nothing to use. And lots are actually diesel.
Even busses - massively subsidised and good, but not used all that much .. not on anything like the density in the UK.
Because of the disparate suburban planning over the past decades , things like shopping centres and swimming pools are located out of centre.
So to get from A to B by bus, even though its possible, it takes an hour to to a journey that takes 15 minutes by car.
Outside the progressive cities with new apartment blocks and townhouse style developments, it seems like people are driving everywhere and aspiring to live to these timber framed modernist mansions.
I don't see how that can all be improved particularly.

So even if you have redistributive policies in Sweden, it won't correct a more fundamental problem which will take a lot longer to resolve.
By contrast, countries like the UK could adopt redistributive policies a lot more quickly and painlessly.

We have PB Scotch Experts. Now we have a PB Swedish Expert telling someone who lives in Sweden what living in Sweden is like. PB, there’s nothing like it!

CorrectHorseBattery said:

StuartDickson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuart and co fear Starmer because he'd run a good Government which would blunt the need for independence.

Perhaps the SNP should propose some policies and we can look at them. Their record in Government is a dismal failure.

Propose policies? Ho ho. There speaks someone firmly locked in Opposition Mode. FYI the SNP have been in government for fifteen years, and have now won eleven elections in a row. Lots of policies implemented and approved at the ballot box.

Welsh Labour, the only one in power, is closer to the SNP than Scottish or English Labour. Anas Sarwar would recoil in horror at some of the things Mark Drakeford says and does. Drakeford is riding high in the polls. Sarwar isn’t.

SNP have done sod all, if they had done anything you'd be able to point out achievements

Fairliered said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

Which European countries are most vulnerable to surging energy prices?
- It’s better to be a consumer in Sweden than Britain

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/08/11/which-european-countries-are-most-vulnerable-to-surging-energy-prices

That graph is shocking: the poorest 20% in England & her satellite states are going to get absolutely hammered compared to the richest 20%.

While the poor suffer more than the rich nearly everywhere, they are better protected in France, Italy, Germany etc

Isn't the greatest per capita consumption of energy in Scandinavia?
I am sure someone will find a graph that shows this.
Clearing the roads of snow (for hundreds and hundreds of kilometres) and heating 200-300 sqm houses favoured by the most people through minus 30 degree winters is bound to use up vast amounts of energy, mainly oil and gas.
It seems to me like, if you go through Sweden or Finland - which I have done a lot; much of it is actually also suburban sprawl. They have never built to any density because of the unlimited supply of land.
This sprawl just goes on for miles. House after house (200-300 sqm) with 3-4 cars.
Also... limited use of public transport. So the trains are empty and cost little or nothing to use. And lots are actually diesel.
Even busses - massively subsidised and good, but not used all that much .. not on anything like the density in the UK.
Because of the disparate suburban planning over the past decades , things like shopping centres and swimming pools are located out of centre.
So to get from A to B by bus, even though its possible, it takes an hour to to a journey that takes 15 minutes by car.
Outside the progressive cities with new apartment blocks and townhouse style developments, it seems like people are driving everywhere and aspiring to live to these timber framed modernist mansions.
I don't see how that can all be improved particularly.

So even if you have redistributive policies in Sweden, it won't correct a more fundamental problem which will take a lot longer to resolve.
By contrast, countries like the UK could adopt redistributive policies a lot more quickly and painlessly.

We have PB Scotch Experts. Now we have a PB Swedish Expert telling someone who lives in Sweden what living in Sweden is like. PB, there’s nothing like it!

CorrectHorseBattery said:

SNP fear Labour because they'll kill independence stone dead

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

Bartholomew, a couple of questions.

1. You've said before that you supported lockdowns at the time. What changed your mind?

2. Can you envisage a situation where you would support public health advice to cut all possible social contract to an absolute minimum as justified? Would an IFR of 10% be sufficiently dangerous? Are there no circumstances at all?

1a. I thought the restrictions would be for a few weeks, not years. A few weeks disruption to 'flatten the curve' as claimed would have been one thing, but once the restrictions were accepted that's not what it became.

1b. The impact of prolonged lockdown was worse on children, mental health etc was far worse than I expected.

2. Advice not law is definitely better. Legal restrictions I doubt I'd ever support again under any circumstances.

I do wonder whether my opinion would have been different if q my daughter had been younger. I didn't have the direct experience of dealing with a young child cut off from their social group for an extended period.

I never liked the law interfering with who was allowed into my home, but since I intended to comply with the advice, because I understood the necessity for it, I felt more strongly that the arguments against were crap, rather than worried that my liberties were curtailed.

Perhaps that was naive, and yet, despite warnings to the contrary that the legal restrictions would never be lifted, none now remain. We actually could trust our government to give up the power it had taken over us, when it was no longer required.

I know a lot of people, including myself, were angry at the government for various things it did, and did not do, but it's worth noting that a lot of the wild accusations thrown around were unwarranted.

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite


https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Hang on, the options are real or hoax, not real or optical illusion. So it doesn't matter if there's a loch there or not, ig it's a hoax it could be, loch somewhere else.

1990 isn't that long ago (oddly enough I know what I was doing the day the photo was taken). Why has neither of the young-at-the-time photographers emerged from the woodwork?

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite

https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Well, it certainly isn't a UFO/UAP.

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite

https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Well, it certainly isn't a UFO/UAP.

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite

https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Well, it certainly isn't a UFO/UAP.

By definition it is a UFO, because it hasn't been definitively identified. What it isn't is an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite


https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Hang on, the options are real or hoax, not real or optical illusion. So it doesn't matter if there's a loch there or not, ig it's a hoax it could be, loch somewhere else.

1990 isn't that long ago (oddly enough I know what I was doing the day the photo was taken). Why has neither of the young-at-the-time photographers emerged from the woodwork?

True, but I'm going by what the pro photo dude said (the guy at Sheffield Hallam uni). He insists this is a real photo of a real object, not a hoax in terms of altered imagery after-the-event (tho we cannot know for sure, natch)

The eye witnesses are curious. Their identity has been disguised for decades, and will remain hidden. There was - without doubt - some kind of MoD kerfuffle, whatever the ultimate reason

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite


https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Hang on, the options are real or hoax, not real or optical illusion. So it doesn't matter if there's a loch there or not, ig it's a hoax it could be, loch somewhere else.

1990 isn't that long ago (oddly enough I know what I was doing the day the photo was taken). Why has neither of the young-at-the-time photographers emerged from the woodwork?

Depending on when the photo was published, for one thing, they could claim copyright fees. AIUI the image was not *published* till 2022, so it is still in copyright for pretty much the full period from now (life of photographer plus 25 or whatever years). So I am [edit] doubtful about the copyright claim plastered on it. I cannot see how it can be copyright of Sheffield University etc unless they had a formal written transfer from the photographer via the MoD. https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed

StuartDickson said:

Mexicanpete said:

StuartDickson said:

RandallFlagg said:

Is it just me, or do Scot Nats dislike Starmer way more than they did either Milliband or Magic Grandpa?
I mean it's not just on PB. Wasn't Tommy Shephard saying some bollocks in the National about how Starmer was the worst Labour leader ever the other day?
My guess is because unlike the previous two leaders, they fear Starmer is going to win and get Labour back in office, which they very much don't want.

I, like approx one third of Scots, would prefer a PM Starmer to a PM Truss. If we choose to stay in the Union.

Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? - Scotland

Liz Truss 19%
Keir Starmer 34%
Not sure 43%
Refused 5%

(YouGov/The Times; 4-5 August)

What makes Starmer so unpalatable, compared to previous Labour leaders, is his ‘Muscular Unionism’. Just another term for bullying.

If I was HY (I am not) I would be telling you that means a Yoon majority of 53%. Let's say accounting for rounding that's 52% plays 48%. Now where have I seen such a compelling case on those numbers?

Hate to tell you, but here’s the VI findings from the same poll 😉

SNP 51%
Con 22%
Lab 16%
LD 5%
Grn 4%
Ref 1%

Pro-independence parties 55%
Unionist parties 44%

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite

https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Well, it certainly isn't a UFO/UAP.

By definition it is a UFO, because it hasn't been definitively identified. What it isn't is an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

And, again, you can't know that. You can say "To my mind it is extremely unlikely to be ET in a weird kite shaped jet" (I'd probably agree). But no one can absolutely rule that out

Alphabet_Soup said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite

https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Well, it certainly isn't a UFO/UAP.

Has fata morgana been considered in this context?

https://skybrary.aero/articles/fata-morgana#:~:text=A superior mirage occurs when,object, hence the name superior.

Fairliered said:

StuartDickson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuart and co fear Starmer because he'd run a good Government which would blunt the need for independence.

Perhaps the SNP should propose some policies and we can look at them. Their record in Government is a dismal failure.

Propose policies? Ho ho. There speaks someone firmly locked in Opposition Mode. FYI the SNP have been in government for fifteen years, and have now won eleven elections in a row. Lots of policies implemented and approved at the ballot box.

Welsh Labour, the only one in power, is closer to the SNP than Scottish or English Labour. Anas Sarwar would recoil in horror at some of the things Mark Drakeford says and does. Drakeford is riding high in the polls. Sarwar isn’t.

Do Scottish Labour have anyone of the quality of Mark Drakeford? No wonder Welsh Labour do well and Scottish Labour don’t.

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite


https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Hang on, the options are real or hoax, not real or optical illusion. So it doesn't matter if there's a loch there or not, ig it's a hoax it could be, loch somewhere else.

1990 isn't that long ago (oddly enough I know what I was doing the day the photo was taken). Why has neither of the young-at-the-time photographers emerged from the woodwork?

True, but I'm going by what the pro photo dude said (the guy at Sheffield Hallam uni). He insists this is a real photo of a real object, not a hoax in terms of altered imagery after-the-event (tho we cannot know for sure, natch)

The eye witnesses are curious. Their identity has been disguised for decades, and will remain hidden. There was - without doubt - some kind of MoD kerfuffle, whatever the ultimate reason

The Sheffield work is not about alien tech but about folklore and myth -

https://www.shu.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-profiles/david-clarke#fourthSection

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Betfair next prime minister
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
10 Rishi Sunak 10%

Next Conservative leader
1.1 Liz Truss 91%
10 Rishi Sunak 10%

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite


https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Hang on, the options are real or hoax, not real or optical illusion. So it doesn't matter if there's a loch there or not, ig it's a hoax it could be, loch somewhere else.

1990 isn't that long ago (oddly enough I know what I was doing the day the photo was taken). Why has neither of the young-at-the-time photographers emerged from the woodwork?

Depending on when the photo was published, for one thing, they could claim copyright fees. AIUI the image was not *published* till 2022, so it is still in copyright for pretty much the full period from now (life of photographer plus 25 or whatever years). So I am [edit] doubtful about the copyright claim plastered on it. I cannot see how it can be copyright of Sheffield University etc unless they had a formal written transfer from the photographer via the MoD. https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed

Good point. Copyright

"What is being withheld until 2072 is simply the name and address of the informant, e.g., the photographer – that is covered by black ink. The reason is that MOD and TNA regard this as ‘personal information’ that should be protected for an extended period of time.”"

The logic being that Mr X is effectively certain to be dead by then. Like the 2021 census was only released last year. Rather than it being anything to do with UFOs.

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_Cooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

turbotubbs said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The problem isn't the Tory party, its the voters. People want contradictory things but refuse to accept there is a contradiction. A series of events have empowered them to believe their genuine ignorance on a subject holds the same weight as actual knowledge and experience. They aren't wrong, the experts are wrong.

There is a way through though - find us a new Blair or Thatcher, someone who does know what they are talking about and has political umph. People said "that is Boris" but as all but the remaining holdouts now accept Boris stood for nothing, with no great policies delivered and settled in his time.

Ummm, BoZo was the politician more than any other in my lifetime that told voters they could have contradictory things. Denied the contradictions. That experts were to be derided.

He was the problem

The fact his opponents failed to make their case shows how poor they were

Not entirely.

If you are in a debate with someone shameless and dishonest enough, it can be really hard to persuade an audience.

It tends to go this;

BORIS-ALIKE Something involving cake and eat it

RORY-ALIKE (because he at least tried) That's not possible- once you have eaten your cake, it's gone...

BORIS-ALIKE There you go, with your doomy gloomy negativity. Remember we are Great Britain! We are being held back by your fears... (Continues ad nauseum.)

Boris style cakeism is a really attractive prospectus. It's awfully hard to argue against, because deep down we want it to be true, and want to believe that there's some meanie stopping it being true for us. That's been the case since the apple/snake/Eve fiasco in Genesis.

It would have been better for the UK had someone successfully argued us out of Borisism, but I'm not convinced that was possible.

It would have been better for the Conservatives and the UK to have not fallen for Borisism, but that required human nature to be something it isn't.

The culpability for (gestures round) all of this belongs with the clique who proposed it, who lied to the public about it, who smeared and deposed those who questioned it.

Not particularly with those who fell for it, and certainly not with those who did their best to argue against it.

Unless you had a better plan to argue against Boris, in which case I'm all ears.

And unless he didn't vote for the Conservatives when Mr Johnson was their leader.

I want to make this clear

I supported Johnson on brexit, covid and Ukraine but he lost me from Paterson onwards

Starmer would have had our economy in lockdown forever if he could, and it is to Johnson's credit he opened the economy when he did

That's a very silly thing to write. Starmer wanted us "in lockdown forever"?

Profoundly stupid read of the situation that isn't worthy of yours usual sage analysis.

Forever is a stretch, but Starmer was ALWAYS on the side of more and longer restrictions.

I accept forever was one of my rather exaggerated comments but there is no doubt Starmer favoured a much stricter and longer lockdown and it was Johnson who made the correct decision and it has been proven as the right thing to do

It is rather hot and I apologise for my exaggeration

Boris caused longer lockdowns by always being slow to initiate a lockdown. Had we acted promptly, we would have better controlled infection rates and could’ve come out of lockdown sooner. It’s yet more short term thinking.

Oh what nonsense. Claimed by people who want to justify lockdowns. Taking away civil liberties as a precautionary measure is unacceptable and the virus would still be prevalent on our continent after any lockdown it wasn't a magic pill that would get rid of it.

What country in Europe successfully had a short, sharp lockdown that was rapidly ended and not repeated?

I can in hindsight point at a country and say we should have done that, Sweden. Can you name any country that had a rapid premature lockdown that worked, fixed things and meant coming out of lockdown sooner?

Following the Swedish model would have been utterly catastrophic. Look at their death rates compared to their immediate neighbours. Thousands of additional people died in Sweden who did not need to because of the route they chose. And that is in spite of the fact that far more people in Sweden work from home anyway so the effects of a lockdown would have been considerably less on their economy.

Many - if not all - European countries got their policies wrong in the pandemic in one way or another. Sweden is certainly no exception.

Thousands extra dying, almost all of whom would have died soon anyway, is better than stripping tens of millions of two years of civil liberties, trashing education and development for years that will have consequences for generations to come, spending hundreds of billions and creating NHS waiting lists for years to come.

The price we paid to keep people alive was not a price worth paying. There's more to life than a mortuary league table.

If the vulnerable wishes to shield that should be there prerogative but not at the price of trashing children's education etc

Bolded: incorrect, and pointed out to you repeatedly before.

Half of those in ICUs were under 60.
A quarter were under 50.

Using averages of deaths is as irrelevant as using the average age of people locked down (which was over 40, so why are we worrying about childrens education when none of them are anywhere near 40. Which would be an absurd argument, but is just as true).

Over 13,000 children lost a parent to covid. Under your plan, that number would be several times higher. And we'd still have had a large (if not larger) economic impact.

In ICU doesn't mean dead.

Some extra casualties is still better than the alternative. Life is for living, even if some people die, we all die eventually.

Shutting down life in fear of death was not a price worth paying. Simply saying "more would die" isn't an argument winner against someone saying death is acceptable.

People go to ICU when there's a very significant chance that they could die without the assistance.
Should there be no more capacity in ICU, no-one else could go to ICU.
Those who would have survived with ICU assistance would therefore be dead.

Even "lesser" hospitalisation would see far more dead without hospital assistance. It's a key reason we have hospitals and healthcare in the first place.

Both ICUs and hospitals were maxed out and beyond maxed out. It was the hospital loadings and ICU loadings that governed the call for lockdowns.

Yes, it's true that everyone dies. We do consider it civilized to minimize avoidable deaths. We could close the deficit and cut taxes hugely at a stroke by abolishing all healthcare spending and pension spending, for example, on the grounds that yes, loads of people would die due to lack of healthcare and/or starve to death in old age, but hey - people die, right?

That is, to me, an absurd case to make, but not far off of your argument.

You're right its not far off the argument and make it less ridiculous and its not unreasonable either.

A budget should be available to the NHS for healthcare and the best available treatment based upon what is affordable - the NHS should not have a blank cheque.

If the NHS not having a blank cheque means more die and fewer receive pensions, then so be it. We can't afford to keep everyone alive forever, nor should we.

The NHS has never had a blank cheque and is never going to, so why this straw man argument?

StuartDickson said:

Mexicanpete said:

StuartDickson said:

RandallFlagg said:

Is it just me, or do Scot Nats dislike Starmer way more than they did either Milliband or Magic Grandpa?
I mean it's not just on PB. Wasn't Tommy Shephard saying some bollocks in the National about how Starmer was the worst Labour leader ever the other day?
My guess is because unlike the previous two leaders, they fear Starmer is going to win and get Labour back in office, which they very much don't want.

I, like approx one third of Scots, would prefer a PM Starmer to a PM Truss. If we choose to stay in the Union.

Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? - Scotland

Liz Truss 19%
Keir Starmer 34%
Not sure 43%
Refused 5%

(YouGov/The Times; 4-5 August)

What makes Starmer so unpalatable, compared to previous Labour leaders, is his ‘Muscular Unionism’. Just another term for bullying.

If I was HY (I am not) I would be telling you that means a Yoon majority of 53%. Let's say accounting for rounding that's 52% plays 48%. Now where have I seen such a compelling case on those numbers?

Hate to tell you, but here’s the VI findings from the same poll 😉

SNP 51%
Con 22%
Lab 16%
LD 5%
Grn 4%
Ref 1%

Pro-independence parties 55%
Unionist parties 44%

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite


https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Hang on, the options are real or hoax, not real or optical illusion. So it doesn't matter if there's a loch there or not, ig it's a hoax it could be, loch somewhere else.

1990 isn't that long ago (oddly enough I know what I was doing the day the photo was taken). Why has neither of the young-at-the-time photographers emerged from the woodwork?

Depending on when the photo was published, for one thing, they could claim copyright fees. AIUI the image was not *published* till 2022, so it is still in copyright for pretty much the full period from now (life of photographer plus 25 or whatever years). So I am [edit] doubtful about the copyright claim plastered on it. I cannot see how it can be copyright of Sheffield University etc unless they had a formal written transfer from the photographer via the MoD. https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed

Good point. Copyright

"What is being withheld until 2072 is simply the name and address of the informant, e.g., the photographer – that is covered by black ink. The reason is that MOD and TNA regard this as ‘personal information’ that should be protected for an extended period of time.”"

The logic being that Mr X is effectively certain to be dead by then. Like the 2021 census was only released last year. Rather than it being anything to do with UFOs.

Nonetheless one might usefully ask why his identity is protected even unto his death. Especially if it just a "rock in a loch". To save his blushes?

And how has the copyright - as you say - passed from him to this guy Craig Lindsay?

Carnyx said:

Fairliered said:

StuartDickson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuart and co fear Starmer because he'd run a good Government which would blunt the need for independence.

Perhaps the SNP should propose some policies and we can look at them. Their record in Government is a dismal failure.

Propose policies? Ho ho. There speaks someone firmly locked in Opposition Mode. FYI the SNP have been in government for fifteen years, and have now won eleven elections in a row. Lots of policies implemented and approved at the ballot box.

Welsh Labour, the only one in power, is closer to the SNP than Scottish or English Labour. Anas Sarwar would recoil in horror at some of the things Mark Drakeford says and does. Drakeford is riding high in the polls. Sarwar isn’t.

Do Scottish Labour have anyone of the quality of Mark Drakeford? No wonder Welsh Labour do well and Scottish Labour don’t.

They used to, at least at the top. But not since, I think, Donald Dewar and Wendy Alexander.

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite


https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Hang on, the options are real or hoax, not real or optical illusion. So it doesn't matter if there's a loch there or not, ig it's a hoax it could be, loch somewhere else.

1990 isn't that long ago (oddly enough I know what I was doing the day the photo was taken). Why has neither of the young-at-the-time photographers emerged from the woodwork?

True, but I'm going by what the pro photo dude said (the guy at Sheffield Hallam uni). He insists this is a real photo of a real object, not a hoax in terms of altered imagery after-the-event (tho we cannot know for sure, natch)

The eye witnesses are curious. Their identity has been disguised for decades, and will remain hidden. There was - without doubt - some kind of MoD kerfuffle, whatever the ultimate reason

The Sheffield work is not about alien tech but about folklore and myth -

https://www.shu.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-profiles/david-clarke#fourthSection

No, you're wrong


I'm talking about this analysis of the photo. By Andrew Robinson

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tWMZ232qgDE6Tru7jwgG-nsqoeQZpIm3/view


He is a lecturer in photography at Sheffield Hallam (presumably a collague/friend of Clarke)

https://www.shu.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-profiles/andrew-robinson

Thanks - hadn't seen that. But the emphasis on folklore and myth is still there.

What are you talking about? You just got confused and thought this was all about Clarke

I'm talking strictly about the photographic analysis. Which has been done by a pro photographer who lectures at Sheffield Hallam. He's done photographs and photo studies about folklore, but also farming, urinals, weather, motorway service stations, poverty, walks, northerly light and woods

You're trying to paint him as a kook, which does not seem to be the case

Sandpit said:

FrankBooth said:

The Ukrainian view - and Zelensky's spokesman does a daily broadcast - is that Russia desperately wants a ceasefire because they know they're in big trouble - make of that what you will. I'd be astonished if the Ukrainians agreed to it. I wouldn't even bet on it if the west withdrew all military support and unaffected by Russia's gas stoppage the US will carry on regardless.

Yes, the Ukranians are not planning on the war ending, until the enemy have withdrawn to the pre-2014 border. The momentum is with them, and there are serious suggestions that the enemy is close to collapsing in places, starved of supply lines and with frequent attacks on stores and supply infrastructure. The key battle in the coming weeks is that around Kherson, the only area West of the river Deniper held by the enemy.

The Russians were totally spooked by whatever went down at the Crimean airfield last week. The initial thought was that it was American-made ATACMS rockets (the big brother of the usual HIMARS MLRS missiles) that were rumoured to be on the way a few weeks ago, but the Americans have denied this. Other possibilities are the Ukranian-made Neptune anti-ship missile, adapted for land use, or more likely a Ukranian special forces operation deep behind enemy lines. Ukranian SF have been trained by the UK and US, so this sort of tactical operation is probably not past them.

ohnotnow said:

Carnyx said:

Fairliered said:

StuartDickson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuart and co fear Starmer because he'd run a good Government which would blunt the need for independence.

Perhaps the SNP should propose some policies and we can look at them. Their record in Government is a dismal failure.

Propose policies? Ho ho. There speaks someone firmly locked in Opposition Mode. FYI the SNP have been in government for fifteen years, and have now won eleven elections in a row. Lots of policies implemented and approved at the ballot box.

Welsh Labour, the only one in power, is closer to the SNP than Scottish or English Labour. Anas Sarwar would recoil in horror at some of the things Mark Drakeford says and does. Drakeford is riding high in the polls. Sarwar isn’t.

Do Scottish Labour have anyone of the quality of Mark Drakeford? No wonder Welsh Labour do well and Scottish Labour don’t.

They used to, at least at the top. But not since, I think, Donald Dewar and Wendy Alexander.

I had high hopes for Wendy Alexander. But she didn't really make much of a mark in the role. I don't know enough about internal SLab politics to know if she was being undermined/let-down by rival factions or was just 'not that good'.

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

WHAT IS IN THAT BLOODY PHOTO?

The researchers are adamant the photo was NOT taken near a loch or wide river. Meaning that the rock in a loch is OUT

"One of our team, Giles Stevens, is local to the Calvine area and has spent a lot of time searching for the location where the images were taken. We’ll discuss on an upcoming livestream. Details soon."

Which leaves increasingly absurd explanations. I don't believe it is a kite


https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_/status/1558433518035795968?s=20&t=1r1qiU8XNLKnrGz6doxx1g

Hang on, the options are real or hoax, not real or optical illusion. So it doesn't matter if there's a loch there or not, ig it's a hoax it could be, loch somewhere else.

1990 isn't that long ago (oddly enough I know what I was doing the day the photo was taken). Why has neither of the young-at-the-time photographers emerged from the woodwork?

True, but I'm going by what the pro photo dude said (the guy at Sheffield Hallam uni). He insists this is a real photo of a real object, not a hoax in terms of altered imagery after-the-event (tho we cannot know for sure, natch)

The eye witnesses are curious. Their identity has been disguised for decades, and will remain hidden. There was - without doubt - some kind of MoD kerfuffle, whatever the ultimate reason

The Sheffield work is not about alien tech but about folklore and myth -

https://www.shu.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-profiles/david-clarke#fourthSection

No, you're wrong


I'm talking about this analysis of the photo. By Andrew Robinson

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tWMZ232qgDE6Tru7jwgG-nsqoeQZpIm3/view


He is a lecturer in photography at Sheffield Hallam (presumably a collague/friend of Clarke)

https://www.shu.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-profiles/andrew-robinson

Thanks - hadn't seen that. But the emphasis on folklore and myth is still there.

What are you talking about? You just got confused and thought this was all about Clarke

I'm talking strictly about the photographic analysis. Which has been done by a pro photographer who lectures at Sheffield Hallam. He's done photographs and photo studies about folklore, but also farming, urinals, weather, motorway service stations, poverty, walks, northerly light and woods

You're trying to paint him as a kook, which does not seem to be the case

Sorry, just meant that the folklore and myth are still present, but in Clarke's work - but this is a very respectable approach. I've seen it done for the Loch Ness monster for instance, when I read up about it. Very illuminating.

The photographer chap has quite separately from this done a very interesting report. Answered a number of obvcious questions which had occurred to me.

StuartDickson said:

Not sure I’d call 45% “gubbed”.

Richard_Tyndall said:

EPG said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

turbotubbs said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The problem isn't the Tory party, its the voters. People want contradictory things but refuse to accept there is a contradiction. A series of events have empowered them to believe their genuine ignorance on a subject holds the same weight as actual knowledge and experience. They aren't wrong, the experts are wrong.

There is a way through though - find us a new Blair or Thatcher, someone who does know what they are talking about and has political umph. People said "that is Boris" but as all but the remaining holdouts now accept Boris stood for nothing, with no great policies delivered and settled in his time.

Ummm, BoZo was the politician more than any other in my lifetime that told voters they could have contradictory things. Denied the contradictions. That experts were to be derided.

He was the problem

The fact his opponents failed to make their case shows how poor they were

Not entirely.

If you are in a debate with someone shameless and dishonest enough, it can be really hard to persuade an audience.

It tends to go this;

BORIS-ALIKE Something involving cake and eat it

RORY-ALIKE (because he at least tried) That's not possible- once you have eaten your cake, it's gone...

BORIS-ALIKE There you go, with your doomy gloomy negativity. Remember we are Great Britain! We are being held back by your fears... (Continues ad nauseum.)

Boris style cakeism is a really attractive prospectus. It's awfully hard to argue against, because deep down we want it to be true, and want to believe that there's some meanie stopping it being true for us. That's been the case since the apple/snake/Eve fiasco in Genesis.

It would have been better for the UK had someone successfully argued us out of Borisism, but I'm not convinced that was possible.

It would have been better for the Conservatives and the UK to have not fallen for Borisism, but that required human nature to be something it isn't.

The culpability for (gestures round) all of this belongs with the clique who proposed it, who lied to the public about it, who smeared and deposed those who questioned it.

Not particularly with those who fell for it, and certainly not with those who did their best to argue against it.

Unless you had a better plan to argue against Boris, in which case I'm all ears.

And unless he didn't vote for the Conservatives when Mr Johnson was their leader.

I want to make this clear

I supported Johnson on brexit, covid and Ukraine but he lost me from Paterson onwards

Starmer would have had our economy in lockdown forever if he could, and it is to Johnson's credit he opened the economy when he did

That's a very silly thing to write. Starmer wanted us "in lockdown forever"?

Profoundly stupid read of the situation that isn't worthy of yours usual sage analysis.

Forever is a stretch, but Starmer was ALWAYS on the side of more and longer restrictions.

I accept forever was one of my rather exaggerated comments but there is no doubt Starmer favoured a much stricter and longer lockdown and it was Johnson who made the correct decision and it has been proven as the right thing to do

It is rather hot and I apologise for my exaggeration

Boris caused longer lockdowns by always being slow to initiate a lockdown. Had we acted promptly, we would have better controlled infection rates and could’ve come out of lockdown sooner. It’s yet more short term thinking.

Oh what nonsense. Claimed by people who want to justify lockdowns. Taking away civil liberties as a precautionary measure is unacceptable and the virus would still be prevalent on our continent after any lockdown it wasn't a magic pill that would get rid of it.

What country in Europe successfully had a short, sharp lockdown that was rapidly ended and not repeated?

I can in hindsight point at a country and say we should have done that, Sweden. Can you name any country that had a rapid premature lockdown that worked, fixed things and meant coming out of lockdown sooner?

Following the Swedish model would have been utterly catastrophic. Look at their death rates compared to their immediate neighbours. Thousands of additional people died in Sweden who did not need to because of the route they chose. And that is in spite of the fact that far more people in Sweden work from home anyway so the effects of a lockdown would have been considerably less on their economy.

Many - if not all - European countries got their policies wrong in the pandemic in one way or another. Sweden is certainly no exception.

The thousands of lives saved are people in institutions. If anything like the rest of Europe, these are places where most people have dementia and nobody is coming out alive. To sacrifice everyone's wellbeing for two years is an excessive price to pay for nursing home safety.

A completely false statement. Most of those who died were not people living in nursing homes. Of course if you are advocating just killing off older people to save money then you are welcome to make that claim but you will be treated with the contempt you deserve.

StuartDickson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

StuartDickson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Stuart and co fear Starmer because he'd run a good Government which would blunt the need for independence.

Perhaps the SNP should propose some policies and we can look at them. Their record in Government is a dismal failure.

Propose policies? Ho ho. There speaks someone firmly locked in Opposition Mode. FYI the SNP have been in government for fifteen years, and have now won eleven elections in a row. Lots of policies implemented and approved at the ballot box.

Welsh Labour, the only one in power, is closer to the SNP than Scottish or English Labour. Anas Sarwar would recoil in horror at some of the things Mark Drakeford says and does. Drakeford is riding high in the polls. Sarwar isn’t.

SNP have done sod all, if they had done anything you'd be able to point out achievements

Says the PB Scotch expert. You Labourites are just as bad as your Tory buddies.

Queensferry Crossing

Child Payment Baby Box

Free bus travel for under 22s

Free period products

Dentistry charges scrapped

Music tuition fees scrapped

Best Performing NHS in the UK

Extended free personal care

Record high health funding

A dozen new Social Security benefits

Free school meals for P1-3s

Best performing A&E in the UK

Record high investment in education

Declared a climate emergency - 1st in world

Planting 22 million trees a year

Scottish National Investment Bank

Building more affordable homes

Small Business Bonus

Expanded MA scheme

Expanded EMAS

School Clothing Grant

Young Person's Guarantee

Investing more in life sciences

Free eye tests

Record support for college students

New progressive tax system

Carer's Allowance Supplement

Record low crime - lowest in over 40 years

Young Carer Grant

Violence Reduction Unit

Record investment in active travel

Best Start Grant

Aberdeen Bypass

Driving forward land reform

Lowering emissions

More investment in Climate Justice Fund

National Islands Plan

Community Empowerment Act

National Marine Plan

Helping deliver COP26

Outperforming UK on foreign investment

Continuing to outperform UK on productivity

Delivering Equally Safe Fund

First gender neutral cabinet in the UK

Keeping Scottish Water in public hands

Ferguson's shipyard jobs saved

BiFab saved

Prestwick Airport saved

Violent crime down

Weapon/knife crime significantly down

Handling the Covid crisis

Alistair said:

Much like 1 picture from a dalle prompt I want to see the other 5 pictures