Skip to content

Sir Keir Starmer has some really poor allies and advisers – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,891
edited 6:59AM in General
Sir Keir Starmer has some really poor allies and advisers – politicalbetting.com

Whenever I try and understand Sir Keir Starmer’s government I am reminded of the quote by Sir Anthony Beever about Operation Market Garden, ‘it was a bad plan right from the start and right from the top’ and this story just reinforces that belief.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,269
    FPT:

    With record highs in both the UK and the US, business seems to be quite happy with the economic environment. It's only the media and politicians that seem to want to create a narrative that not all is well.

    However, no sooner has Jenrick gone, that Badenoch is stating that Britain isn't broken (as reported in today's Telegraph) And she adds that 'Britains best days are ahead' - under a Labour government?

    Total Badenoch love-in in today's newspapers. We'll see how long that lasts.

    Britain is not broken ...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0y723mr3eo
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,740
    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,699
    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,699

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    The only thing Wes Streeting and Robert Jenrick have in common is that they both attended the finest university in the world.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,731

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    Indeed.

    But that progress on waiting lists is looking sketchy, unless it speeds up - which may happen with lessons being learned to add effectiveness

    The reduction from peak is 7.75 million cases to 7.3 million, which is only a little over 5%.

    Extrapolate, and I don't see 15% being enough over the whole term for a clear success; I'd say it needs to be at least a 1/3 reduction in waiting lists, which would be to just under 5 million cases - just above pre-Covid level.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,269

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    AI says

    There is no reliable way to know whether you are literally the first person ever to make that comparison, and it is extremely unlikely anyone could prove it either way. Any conversation, post, or comment that has not been recorded or is not searchable could contain the same comparison.

    However, that pairing is unusual: Keir Starmer is a lawyer-turned-politician who became Labour leader and then prime minister in peacetime, whereas Bernard Montgomery was a Second World War field marshal best known for battlefield command in North Africa and northwest Europe, so they are not figures who are commonly discussed together. [en.wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,740

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    There was a horseracing writer who bunked off from Eton with a friend. They were busted in London after a lady of the night declined payment by cheque, and expelled. While waiting to be picked up, the godfather of the other boy arrived unexpectedly to take him to lunch and was able to intercede successfully with the headmaster, who was no match for Field Marshal the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Something like that anyway.

    But you are wrong. Look at the turnover in Number 10 staff. At some point we have to ask if it is the manager or the players who are at fault.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,740

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    Both Jenrick and Streeting are Cambridge graduates and thus fail my Oxford test for betting on future prime ministers.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,740
    MattW said:

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    Indeed.

    But that progress on waiting lists is looking sketchy, unless it speeds up - which may happen with lessons being learned to add effectiveness

    The reduction from peak is 7.75 million cases to 7.3 million, which is only a little over 5%.

    Extrapolate, and I don't see 15% being enough over the whole term for a clear success; I'd say it needs to be at least a 1/3 reduction in waiting lists, which would be to just under 5 million cases - just above pre-Covid level.
    Indeed but it is a step in the right direction, although I expect waiting times are more important than waiting lists – lived experience trumps tractor stats.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 1,033
    edited 7:33AM
    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital. One more out of hospital!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,740

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    The only thing Wes Streeting and Robert Jenrick have in common is that they both attended the finest university in the world.
    Sorry. Missed your post when reminding PBers I am an Oxford man when it comes to betting on next PM.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,748
    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 1,033
    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,259

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    There was a horseracing writer who bunked off from Eton with a friend. They were busted in London after a lady of the night declined payment by cheque, and expelled. While waiting to be picked up, the godfather of the other boy arrived unexpectedly to take him to lunch and was able to intercede successfully with the headmaster, who was no match for Field Marshal the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Something like that anyway.

    But you are wrong. Look at the turnover in Number 10 staff. At some point we have to ask if it is the manager or the players who are at fault.
    Or one particular player, anyway.

    When he was eccentric but not bonkers, the late Scott Adams wrote that the key job of managers was to eliminate assholes from the staff. (That and model efficient working so that everyone goes home at 5 pm. Same principle as the four day week people.) No matter how technically capable such people are, if they are assholes, they always turn out to be more trouble than they are worth.

    Boris failed to do that with Dom. Keir is failing to do that, presumably with Morgan. TMay failed to do it with her gruesome twosome. Is it a personal failure by those three, or is it structural? Do Prime Ministers currently need a terrible person at the top of their staff, for reasons unclear? If it's the latter, the structure needs to be fixed.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,748
    MattW said:

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    Indeed.

    But that progress on waiting lists is looking sketchy, unless it speeds up - which may happen with lessons being learned to add effectiveness

    The reduction from peak is 7.75 million cases to 7.3 million, which is only a little over 5%.

    Extrapolate, and I don't see 15% being enough over the whole term for a clear success; I'd say it needs to be at least a 1/3 reduction in waiting lists, which would be to just under 5 million cases - just above pre-Covid level.
    Yes, it is waiting times rather than the number on the list that matters to patients. My Trust has a strong drive on tackling the long waiters, with weekly meeting amongst managers to go through them on an individual basis.

    The problem tends to be no bed capacity, the same reason that we have patients on trolleys in ED corridors and queues of ambulances that cannt unload. It all comes back to the failure of Social Care.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,259

    Battlebus said:

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    AI says

    There is no reliable way to know whether you are literally the first person ever to make that comparison, and it is extremely unlikely anyone could prove it either way. Any conversation, post, or comment that has not been recorded or is not searchable could contain the same comparison.

    However, that pairing is unusual: Keir Starmer is a lawyer-turned-politician who became Labour leader and then prime minister in peacetime, whereas Bernard Montgomery was a Second World War field marshal best known for battlefield command in North Africa and northwest Europe, so they are not figures who are commonly discussed together. [en.wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer)
    Thank you Chief Constable.
    Do retired Chief Constables keep their title?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,748
    Icarus said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
    Best of luck, and you have my sympathies.

    It is difficult at distance, I was down in Romsey last weekend to support my 90 year old Dad look after my 88 year old mum after she was discharged. They are just about coping but it is a very fragile as a situation.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,297
    edited 7:52AM

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    There was a horseracing writer who bunked off from Eton with a friend. They were busted in London after a lady of the night declined payment by cheque, and expelled. While waiting to be picked up, the godfather of the other boy arrived unexpectedly to take him to lunch and was able to intercede successfully with the headmaster, who was no match for Field Marshal the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Something like that anyway.

    But you are wrong. Look at the turnover in Number 10 staff. At some point we have to ask if it is the manager or the players who are at fault.
    Or one particular player, anyway.

    When he was eccentric but not bonkers, the late Scott Adams wrote that the key job of managers was to eliminate assholes from the staff. (That and model efficient working so that everyone goes home at 5 pm. Same principle as the four day week people.) No matter how technically capable such people are, if they are assholes, they always turn out to be more trouble than they are worth.

    Boris failed to do that with Dom. Keir is failing to do that, presumably with Morgan. TMay failed to do it with her gruesome twosome. Is it a personal failure by those three, or is it structural? Do Prime Ministers currently need a terrible person at the top of their staff, for reasons unclear? If it's the latter, the structure needs to be fixed.
    I think it's more terrible people engineer they way to the top by doing terrible things.

    Boris, TMay and co don't see / suffer as from the years of engineering that got them into that position, just someone who gets things done..
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,312

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    In defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable?

    Perhaps not.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,731
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    Indeed.

    But that progress on waiting lists is looking sketchy, unless it speeds up - which may happen with lessons being learned to add effectiveness

    The reduction from peak is 7.75 million cases to 7.3 million, which is only a little over 5%.

    Extrapolate, and I don't see 15% being enough over the whole term for a clear success; I'd say it needs to be at least a 1/3 reduction in waiting lists, which would be to just under 5 million cases - just above pre-Covid level.
    Yes, it is waiting times rather than the number on the list that matters to patients. My Trust has a strong drive on tackling the long waiters, with weekly meeting amongst managers to go through them on an individual basis.

    The problem tends to be no bed capacity, the same reason that we have patients on trolleys in ED corridors and queues of ambulances that cannt unload. It all comes back to the failure of Social Care.

    Politically, he needs to hit 4 out of 5 of his big commitments to a noticeable degree, I think, for the next election.

    Then we can say that the game is at least afoot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg58hVEY5Og
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,054

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    It's al a mein plot to make you seem subtle.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,733
    Streeting is openly in leadership campaign mode. It is similar to the Jenrick Badenoch situation, there's just an absence where the usual niceties should be - at least on Streeting's side. What Starmer does about it depends whether he actually wants Streeting to succeed him, or whether he does want to hold on at all costs.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,476
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    Indeed.

    But that progress on waiting lists is looking sketchy, unless it speeds up - which may happen with lessons being learned to add effectiveness

    The reduction from peak is 7.75 million cases to 7.3 million, which is only a little over 5%.

    Extrapolate, and I don't see 15% being enough over the whole term for a clear success; I'd say it needs to be at least a 1/3 reduction in waiting lists, which would be to just under 5 million cases - just above pre-Covid level.
    Yes, it is waiting times rather than the number on the list that matters to patients. My Trust has a strong drive on tackling the long waiters, with weekly meeting amongst managers to go through them on an individual basis.

    The problem tends to be no bed capacity, the same reason that we have patients on trolleys in ED corridors and queues of ambulances that cannt unload. It all comes back to the failure of Social Care.

    Politically, he needs to hit 4 out of 5 of his big commitments to a noticeable degree, I think, for the next election.

    Then we can say that the game is at least afoot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg58hVEY5Og
    I'd suggest the biggest difference to the Labour share of the vote in 28/29 will be the state of the Israel conflict. The next biggest is whether we get a peace in Ukraine and the economic dividend associated with that. Then his delivery kicks in, but with their terrible comms and hostile media, delivery won't move many voters.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,699

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    In defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable?

    Perhaps not.
    Gawd, that sounds like me.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 18,178
    FPT…
    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 18,178
    edited 8:15AM
    FPT…
    viewcode said:

    Anyway. Everybody is too fraught. Here's "Walk like an Egyptian" by the Bangles. That'll cheer people up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA0VfqtIK_A

    I presume this is celebration of Susanna Hoffs’ birthday today.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,731
    edited 8:18AM

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    Indeed.

    But that progress on waiting lists is looking sketchy, unless it speeds up - which may happen with lessons being learned to add effectiveness

    The reduction from peak is 7.75 million cases to 7.3 million, which is only a little over 5%.

    Extrapolate, and I don't see 15% being enough over the whole term for a clear success; I'd say it needs to be at least a 1/3 reduction in waiting lists, which would be to just under 5 million cases - just above pre-Covid level.
    Yes, it is waiting times rather than the number on the list that matters to patients. My Trust has a strong drive on tackling the long waiters, with weekly meeting amongst managers to go through them on an individual basis.

    The problem tends to be no bed capacity, the same reason that we have patients on trolleys in ED corridors and queues of ambulances that cannt unload. It all comes back to the failure of Social Care.

    Politically, he needs to hit 4 out of 5 of his big commitments to a noticeable degree, I think, for the next election.

    Then we can say that the game is at least afoot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg58hVEY5Og
    I'd suggest the biggest difference to the Labour share of the vote in 28/29 will be the state of the Israel conflict. The next biggest is whether we get a peace in Ukraine and the economic dividend associated with that. Then his delivery kicks in, but with their terrible comms and hostile media, delivery won't move many voters.
    Currently I'm at SKS's score card being:

    1 - Immigration - figures and the small boats narrative
    2 - Housebuilding
    3 - NHS Waiting Lists
    4 - Felt-better economic position
    5 - And various smaller ones

    (I've probbaly missed something out).

    If he has noticeably not succeeded on 2 of those, he is likely to be sunk.

    If it's only 1, he has a chance, but is still vulnerable to his ineffective politics, poor comms, a lot of issues "out there", and other things.

    All the foreign policy questions come under point 5.

    It's a sticky wicket.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,954

    FPT…

    viewcode said:

    Anyway. Everybody is too fraught. Here's "Walk like an Egyptian" by the Bangles. That'll cheer people up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA0VfqtIK_A

    I presume this is celebration of Susanna Hoffs’ birthday today.
    There was one of those tedious clickbait articles in my FB feed the other day.

    ‘You won’t believe who this eighties pop star is and how she looks now’

    It was Susannah Hoffs. She looks great. People age !!
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 2,103
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    NHS waiting lists are falling and the Health Secretary has one of the Cabinet's success stories. Even if he is nakedly ambitious, he is not openly criticising the government or his Cabinet colleagues. Wes Streeting is no Robert Jenrick.

    Indeed.

    But that progress on waiting lists is looking sketchy, unless it speeds up - which may happen with lessons being learned to add effectiveness

    The reduction from peak is 7.75 million cases to 7.3 million, which is only a little over 5%.

    Extrapolate, and I don't see 15% being enough over the whole term for a clear success; I'd say it needs to be at least a 1/3 reduction in waiting lists, which would be to just under 5 million cases - just above pre-Covid level.
    Yes, it is waiting times rather than the number on the list that matters to patients. My Trust has a strong drive on tackling the long waiters, with weekly meeting amongst managers to go through them on an individual basis.

    The problem tends to be no bed capacity, the same reason that we have patients on trolleys in ED corridors and queues of ambulances that cannt unload. It all comes back to the failure of Social Care.

    Optimistically I'd hope that as you get waiting times down the rate at which they fall increases because the patients condition hasn't deteriorated as far.
    The reverse being why it's so high, the coalition thinking that letting waiting times increase a few weeks with the same resources was an equilibrium position when instead it was a worsening one.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 18,178
    Taz said:

    FPT…

    viewcode said:

    Anyway. Everybody is too fraught. Here's "Walk like an Egyptian" by the Bangles. That'll cheer people up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA0VfqtIK_A

    I presume this is celebration of Susanna Hoffs’ birthday today.
    There was one of those tedious clickbait articles in my FB feed the other day.

    ‘You won’t believe who this eighties pop star is and how she looks now’

    It was Susannah Hoffs. She looks great. People age !!
    Hoffs, 67, indeed looks great. Must have a picture in the attic great.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,157
    edited 8:25AM

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,918
    edited 8:39AM

    Streeting is openly in leadership campaign mode. It is similar to the Jenrick Badenoch situation, there's just an absence where the usual niceties should be - at least on Streeting's side. What Starmer does about it depends whether he actually wants Streeting to succeed him, or whether he does want to hold on at all costs.

    As I said yesterday, the real point from this story isn’t so much about Streeting or Starmer, but in underlining that the rest of the cabinet don’t much like Streeting’s politics and ambition. If he does become leader that may not work out too well.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,034
    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
    Best of luck, and you have my sympathies.

    It is difficult at distance, I was down in Romsey last weekend to support my 90 year old Dad look after my 88 year old mum after she was discharged. They are just about coping but it is a very fragile as a situation.
    I think govt should be making it easier for people to move closer to their parents (or move their parents closer to them). I feel it would resolve so many challenges in social care/health to have younger, motivated relatives around to help out.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 2,103
    IanB2 said:

    Streeting is openly in leadership campaign mode. It is similar to the Jenrick Badenoch situation, there's just an absence where the usual niceties should be - at least on Streeting's side. What Starmer does about it depends whether he actually wants Streeting to succeed him, or whether he does want to hold on at all costs.

    As I said yesterday, the real point from this story isn’t so much about Streeting or Starmer, but in underlining that the rest of the cabinet don’t much like Streeting’s politics and ambition,
    The real point of the story is that the Times is trying to distract from the hilarious blue on blue bloodletting. It could be entirely made-up or, more likely, there could be 3 cabinet ministers Swinford can rely on to slag off Streeting whenever he asks.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,157
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
    Best of luck, and you have my sympathies.

    It is difficult at distance, I was down in Romsey last weekend to support my 90 year old Dad look after my 88 year old mum after she was discharged. They are just about coping but it is a very fragile as a situation.
    I think govt should be making it easier for people to move closer to their parents (or move their parents closer to them). I feel it would resolve so many challenges in social care/health to have younger, motivated relatives around to help out.
    Yet another positive from abolishing stamp duty, reforming or abolishing IHT, and introducing a flat property tax. We have too many old people languishing is large family homes miles away from their relatives. That's largely a cultural thing, but it's also the case that our tax system encourages it too.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,512
    https://www.youtube.com/live/yg5AAIhakoU?si=AFQQ5CZYVzpCeYsb

    Some pretty extreme police brutality last night outside the London Iranian embassy, dished out against anti ayatollah exiles. Just what is becoming of this place.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 66,112
    edited 8:48AM
    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,157
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 77,054
    No wonder he's not posting here as much, there's less of him:

    Weight loss jabs are 'opportunity' for @Leon, boss says
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7z8j9j3ypo
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,731
    edited 8:53AM
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
    Best of luck, and you have my sympathies.

    It is difficult at distance, I was down in Romsey last weekend to support my 90 year old Dad look after my 88 year old mum after she was discharged. They are just about coping but it is a very fragile as a situation.
    I think govt should be making it easier for people to move closer to their parents (or move their parents closer to them). I feel it would resolve so many challenges in social care/health to have younger, motivated relatives around to help out.
    I think that's a useful point, but what do you want the Government to do?

    Is this not really something for the family to consider once any children have finally been chucked out?

    (In my case we finally moved my mum into my household in a "walkable to town" location when she was 75 and I was 47, but I do not have children.)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,312
    moonshine said:

    https://www.youtube.com/live/yg5AAIhakoU?si=AFQQ5CZYVzpCeYsb

    Some pretty extreme police brutality last night outside the London Iranian embassy, dished out against anti ayatollah exiles. Just what is becoming of this place.

    Bloody disgrace, they should be concentrating their limited resources on the Palestine Action t-shirt pensioners.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,146
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    Good to see youre still with us @Leon.

    PB Lefties saying how right they are about everything has just made the site boring.

    They cant even do it with a touch of humour.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 66,112
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,157
    edited 8:56AM
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,918

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    FTFY
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,731
    Eabhal said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
    Best of luck, and you have my sympathies.

    It is difficult at distance, I was down in Romsey last weekend to support my 90 year old Dad look after my 88 year old mum after she was discharged. They are just about coping but it is a very fragile as a situation.
    I think govt should be making it easier for people to move closer to their parents (or move their parents closer to them). I feel it would resolve so many challenges in social care/health to have younger, motivated relatives around to help out.
    Yet another positive from abolishing stamp duty, reforming or abolishing IHT, and introducing a flat property tax. We have too many old people languishing is large family homes miles away from their relatives. That's largely a cultural thing, but it's also the case that our tax system encourages it too.
    What is a "flat property tax"?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,034
    MattW said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
    Best of luck, and you have my sympathies.

    It is difficult at distance, I was down in Romsey last weekend to support my 90 year old Dad look after my 88 year old mum after she was discharged. They are just about coping but it is a very fragile as a situation.
    I think govt should be making it easier for people to move closer to their parents (or move their parents closer to them). I feel it would resolve so many challenges in social care/health to have younger, motivated relatives around to help out.
    I think that's a useful point, but what do you want the Government to do?

    Is this not really something for the family to consider once any children have finally been chucked out?

    (In my case we finally moved my mum into my household in a "walkable to town" location when she was 75 and I was 47, but I do not have children.)
    I think swapping stamp duty for annual property tax % of some kind would shift economic incentives to move.

    Govt has also made it easier to build granny flats through planning recently, which could be a big deal.

    Probably many other things could be done also...
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,835
    Starmer has always relied upon lousy advisers.

    In order to become party leader, Starmer relied upon a faction whose extraordinary talent was its ability to comprehensively defeat the left of his party in internal party warfare. Starmer's problem is that he has relied solely upon the same faction (McSweeney, McFadden etc) to run his government. The problem is that their talent for factional warfare is their only talent.

    Taking policy stances which invariably antagonise the left was and remains McSweeney's recipe for effective government. If it provides an excuse to remove the whip from MPs that rebel, so much the better. It's anything but what is needed for broad church effective government. A recipe for government by u-turn, because saner forces outside the inner sanctum cannot prevail until the damage is done.

    That stance of openly seeking to antagonise left wing voters has cost Labour at least 5% in recent polling and probably a lot more if you go back further. It's evident not just from the close inverse correlation between the Greens' recent polling and that of Labour. The rot set in before the general election as those factional geniuses managed to reduce a projected Labour vote share of 45% to 34% in the space of a few weeks campaigning on an anaemic manifesto that totally misread the public's mood for real change.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,918
    edited 9:02AM
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    You’ve hit the nail on the head - the people who so easily dismiss as “centrist” everyone from socialists like owls and Palmer through hard core Tories like Casino and HY, not to mention our bonnie cadre of Scots Nats, have simply thrown themselves out of the Overton window and are then observing, from their position squished on the gravel driveway of reality, that everyone else seems to be still upstairs.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,731
    rkrkrk said:

    MattW said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
    Best of luck, and you have my sympathies.

    It is difficult at distance, I was down in Romsey last weekend to support my 90 year old Dad look after my 88 year old mum after she was discharged. They are just about coping but it is a very fragile as a situation.
    I think govt should be making it easier for people to move closer to their parents (or move their parents closer to them). I feel it would resolve so many challenges in social care/health to have younger, motivated relatives around to help out.
    I think that's a useful point, but what do you want the Government to do?

    Is this not really something for the family to consider once any children have finally been chucked out?

    (In my case we finally moved my mum into my household in a "walkable to town" location when she was 75 and I was 47, but I do not have children.)
    I think swapping stamp duty for annual property tax % of some kind would shift economic incentives to move.

    Govt has also made it easier to build granny flats through planning recently, which could be a big deal.

    Probably many other things could be done also...
    OK I'm with you on those. And I have a list of about 27 other things, but there is also a lot in place from the past that most of us forget about or had never heard of.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,157
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    My aunt, 95, has just been discharged from hospital after a stoke. Assessed that she could cope at home with care visits. In fact she can't so could she go into respite care? No you can only go into respite directly from hospital and there is no case to admit her to hospital.

    Contact the stroke team. The stroke rehab ward at St Lukes in Market Harborough is very good, assuming she is local to you.
    Thanks but Barrow-in-Furness driving up the M6 tomorrow.
    Best of luck, and you have my sympathies.

    It is difficult at distance, I was down in Romsey last weekend to support my 90 year old Dad look after my 88 year old mum after she was discharged. They are just about coping but it is a very fragile as a situation.
    I think govt should be making it easier for people to move closer to their parents (or move their parents closer to them). I feel it would resolve so many challenges in social care/health to have younger, motivated relatives around to help out.
    Yet another positive from abolishing stamp duty, reforming or abolishing IHT, and introducing a flat property tax. We have too many old people languishing is large family homes miles away from their relatives. That's largely a cultural thing, but it's also the case that our tax system encourages it too.
    What is a "flat property tax"?
    For me, this is 0.5% of last sale value adjusted for changes to local HPI. So if you bought your flat for £200,000 in 2018, and house prices in your LA have increased by 10% since then, your tax is £1,100.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,918
    edited 9:07AM

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    Bottom line is all Trump really wants is an additional face to be carved into that mountain in South Dakota
  • LeonLeon Posts: 66,112
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,403
    IanB2 said:

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    Bottom line is all Trump wants is an additional face to be carved into that mountain in South Dakota
    Sounds two cheeky.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,339

    Am I the first person ever to compare Sir Keir Starmer to Bernard Montgomery?

    A Bridge Too Far.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 66,112
    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    You’ve hit the nail on the head - the people who so easily dismiss as “centrist” everyone from socialists like owls and Palmer through hard core Tories like Casino and HY, not to mention our bonnie cadre of Scots Nats, have simply thrown themselves out of the Overton window and are then observing, from their position squished on the gravel driveway of reality, that everyone else seems to be still upstairs.
    What the fuck does this incoherent spew of gibberish even mean?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,339
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3g8glgxvo

    "Four taken to hospital after Iranian Embassy protest"
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,512
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,918
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    You’ve hit the nail on the head - the people who so easily dismiss as “centrist” everyone from socialists like owls and Palmer through hard core Tories like Casino and HY, not to mention our bonnie cadre of Scots Nats, have simply thrown themselves out of the Overton window and are then observing, from their position squished on the gravel driveway of reality, that everyone else seems to be still upstairs.
    What the fuck does this incoherent spew of gibberish even mean?
    My apologies for pitching it above the IQ threshold where you can understand it
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,512

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3g8glgxvo

    "Four taken to hospital after Iranian Embassy protest"

    Take a look at the TousiTV YouTube vid I posted.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,146
    Nigelb said:

    .

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    In return for which they promised by treaty to acknowledge Denmark's control of Greenland.
    Of course, but now theyre back waving their cash and saying fancy selling ?

    The purchase seems wired to us but maybe less so to them.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,339
    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    Is "Centrist" naught but code for "people I disagree with"?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,157
    edited 9:15AM
    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    You’ve hit the nail on the head - the people who so easily dismiss as “centrist” everyone from socialists like owls and Palmer through hard core Tories like Casino and HY, not to mention our bonnie cadre of Scots Nats, have simply thrown themselves out of the Overton window and are then observing, from their position squished on the gravel driveway of reality, that everyone else seems to be still upstairs.
    It would be great to define "centrism" though, and get some polling to work out what topics are included. I guess it would be something that enjoys perhaps 60 - 70% support, but there are significant fringes that are opposed. Using this, Claude gives me:
    • Increasing number of foreign students
    • Current levels of skilled immigration
    • Full staffing the NHS even if it means more immigration
    • Assisted dying
    • Closer ties with the EU
    • The Monarchy
    But not included is
    • Increase bus services (80% support)
    • Clean rivers (90)
    • Increase investment in Renewables (over 80)
    • Rejoin the EU (50)
    • National Service (28)
    • Jail Chris Whitty (I would guess less than 5)
    • The Boriswave (less than 5)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,333
    Oh crap, Russia have managed to get their hands on Starlink terminals for suicide drones.

    https://x.com/clashreport/status/2011842930265190720

    This will stop the Ukranians from jamming them, and SpaceX are going to struggle to block them without taking out the Ukranians’ own drones heading for Moscow or an oil refinery.

    Hopefully they can find a serial or batch number and trace them back to add to a blacklist.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,484
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    You’ve hit the nail on the head - the people who so easily dismiss as “centrist” everyone from socialists like owls and Palmer through hard core Tories like Casino and HY, not to mention our bonnie cadre of Scots Nats, have simply thrown themselves out of the Overton window and are then observing, from their position squished on the gravel driveway of reality, that everyone else seems to be still upstairs.
    What the fuck does this incoherent spew of gibberish even mean?
    From being relatively calm since Christmas this place has all of a sudden become more aggressive and less collegiate. It seems to have coincided with Robert Jenrick's attack on the Conservative Party.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,413
    you like a good batshit conspiracy theory leon, what do you make of the sasha riley recordings?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,828
    edited 9:17AM
    Good morning

    Boris Johnson holds nothing back in attacking 'narcissistic defections and praising Kemi Badenoch [daily mail]

    Any hope by the Boris disciples now in Reform of him joining them is for the birds
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,333

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    Indeed, and there’s a surprisingly long history of America wanting to purchase Greenland, even if it’s not been news for the last three or four decades.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 66,112
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,607
    With regards to Starmer and his purported poor friends and advisors, its hard to advise someone to be decisive and strong if they are not. And I think there is plentiful evidence that Starmer doesn't really have a vision beyond "lets get more people able to see a GP".

    This isn't unique to him. Sunak's vision for the country was to possess a Green Card for somewhere else. Truss's was to destroy everything and rebuild in her image to be Ice Queen, Boris wanted to be World King but had no idea what that meant, May just wanted to make the Brexit thing work.

    We haven't had a leader with a vision since Cameron. And before him Blair, Thatcher, Macmillan, Attlee. They don't come along very often.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,512

    Nigelb said:

    .

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    In return for which they promised by treaty to acknowledge Denmark's control of Greenland.
    Of course, but now theyre back waving their cash and saying fancy selling ?

    The purchase seems wired to us but maybe less so to them.
    I’m so bored of the sanctimonious political spinning of Greenland story. Denmark has been quietly pushing Greenland towards independence for years and the process has been accelerating in the last few. A referendum will follow the writing of a draft constitution.

    It is not a part of the EU and there is no guarantee an independent Greenland would choose NATO either, with its ~50k residents available to the highest bidder. Which by the way in recent years has been China, when it comes to “minerals exploitation” deals (Operation Getting a Foothold).

    Uncanny similarity to European energy dependency on Russia. “How could we EVER have foreseen such a problem?”. An entirely avoidable slow motion train wreck, precipitated by the complacency and arrogance of the european body politik.

    The Danes should just come out and say that Greenland has been an integral part of their territory for centuries and will not be permitted independence under any circumstances. Further, autonomous governance has gone too far, as illustrated by minerals deals with China that threaten Western security, and direct control will be assumed. Job done.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,259
    edited 9:22AM

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    You’ve hit the nail on the head - the people who so easily dismiss as “centrist” everyone from socialists like owls and Palmer through hard core Tories like Casino and HY, not to mention our bonnie cadre of Scots Nats, have simply thrown themselves out of the Overton window and are then observing, from their position squished on the gravel driveway of reality, that everyone else seems to be still upstairs.
    What the fuck does this incoherent spew of gibberish even mean?
    From being relatively calm since Christmas this place has all of a sudden become more aggressive and less collegiate. It seems to have coincided with Robert Jenrick's attack on the Conservative Party.
    Nah.

    All Wes Streeting's fault.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,048
    IanB2 said:

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    Bottom line is all Trump really wants is an additional face to be carved into that mountain in South Dakota
    His next move will be to announce that previous manned moon missions were faked and that under him with the Artemis 3 mission the first men reached the moon so he deserves the Nobel Science prize.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 18,178
    .
    Sandpit said:

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    Indeed, and there’s a surprisingly long history of America wanting to purchase Greenland, even if it’s not been news for the last three or four decades.
    Greenland doesn’t want to be purchased. The problem is that, faced with that rejection, Trump wants to take Greenland by force. But I guess that’s Trump’s approach when women reject his sexual overtures, so it’s no surprise that he is repeating that behaviour but at a national level.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,733
    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
    It is also the fact that the two countries responsible also happen to be the two most powerful countries in the world. What can one do? If the country responsible was Guatemala, it would be The Hague all round.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,569
    edited 9:27AM

    With regards to Starmer and his purported poor friends and advisors, its hard to advise someone to be decisive and strong if they are not. And I think there is plentiful evidence that Starmer doesn't really have a vision beyond "lets get more people able to see a GP".

    This isn't unique to him. Sunak's vision for the country was to possess a Green Card for somewhere else. Truss's was to destroy everything and rebuild in her image to be Ice Queen, Boris wanted to be World King but had no idea what that meant, May just wanted to make the Brexit thing work.

    We haven't had a leader with a vision since Cameron. And before him Blair, Thatcher, Macmillan, Attlee. They don't come along very often.

    A bit hard on poor Harold Wilson and his modernisation drive (white heat, social reform), I think?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,333

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    Here:

    image
    That’s a very cool map, well done for finding.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,902
    Morning all :)

    I suppose the Starmer/Sweeting situation, rather like the Badenoch/Jenrick situation, is down to the confidence of the leader and the degree to which they are prepared to tolerate internal dissent in the name of keeping the broader coalition intact.

    If a party becomes a leader cult (I said cult, it's not that early) then it's not only bad for the party, it's bad for democracy. A degree of internal dissent, argument, debate is actually no bad thing but the line from those who claim to know is the electorate prefers strong leaders and united parties - well, perhaps but again that doesn't make it right.

    Given parties are, by their very nature, coalitions or even factions, the fact you can have different views is symptomatic of the reality and reflective, I'd argue, of wider opinion which is often nuanced. The ability of a party to have a debate in public about key issues isn't a sign of weakness, I'd argue, but one of strength.

    Thus, we end up with democracy outside the party and totalitarianism within it and that seems unfortunately to be the response to the modern world of the 24/7 news cycle and social media where every hint of dissent becomes portrayed as a split and is played and replayed every hour on GB News or any other outlet with nothing to fill the time.

    There's another truth about being in a political party - you may well end up with people with whom you agree politically but who you cannot abide personally - it happens a lot in council groups. Working with people you don't like on a personal level would be my idea of employment purgatory and I was fortunate inasmuch as in my working life I got on well with 99% of my colleagues 99% of the time (but then I'm a nice person). The other side of it is there may be people in another party who you like personally but disagree with politically. That dynamic is often the unspoken aspect of defection.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,484

    With regards to Starmer and his purported poor friends and advisors, its hard to advise someone to be decisive and strong if they are not. And I think there is plentiful evidence that Starmer doesn't really have a vision beyond "lets get more people able to see a GP".

    This isn't unique to him. Sunak's vision for the country was to possess a Green Card for somewhere else. Truss's was to destroy everything and rebuild in her image to be Ice Queen, Boris wanted to be World King but had no idea what that meant, May just wanted to make the Brexit thing work.

    We haven't had a leader with a vision since Cameron. And before him Blair, Thatcher, Macmillan, Attlee. They don't come along very often.

    Cameron's vision to unite the Conservative Party. Very admirable, but it didn't work out so well.

    I think Ted definitely had a vision which was Eurofederalism, and might have worked if it hadn't been for Cameron saving the Conservative Party from itself.

    And how dare you miss out Harold (W). Harold's vision was to keep Butskellism running forever, and to my mind that was desirable and laudable.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,569
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
    I'm still very angry about it - particularly the lack of respect shown to young people. I still vividly recall the Radio Scotland phone-in where pensioners wanted young people to be banned from going out so they could safely go to the pub. Absolute *****. The lack of personal responsibility too - depending entirely on lockdowns rather than telling everyone to lose some weight and get fit so as to reduce the chance of ending up in hospital. The gigantic debt we ran up that continues to cripple our public finances (there should have been a National Crisis tax on high earners/wealth, sat in their gorgeous gardens and chucking £10ks into their ISAs while everyone else went insane and bankrupt).

    But I reserve my anger for the politicians. It's their job to get this right. Be honest - if it was Starmer rather than Johnson, Biden rather than Trump, it wouldn't be the scientists being threatened with jail.
    I think the country will have turned a corner if (when?) we are finally willing to confront Covid, lockdown and its legacy.

    There has been a frightening lack of insight or debate on the economic and fiscal policies, in particular, which underpin a number of the challenges we face now. All too often I fear this is because they were enabled by an unquestioning mainstream media who consistently sided with a more restrictions/more support mindset throughout the pandemic.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,484
    edited 9:41AM

    Good morning

    Boris Johnson holds nothing back in attacking 'narcissistic defections and praising Kemi Badenoch [daily mail]

    Any hope by the Boris disciples now in Reform of him joining them is for the birds

    But now Jenrick has gone, Johnson is the natural heir to Badenochiasm. He needs a seat in Parliament before he stabs her in the back and returns to Downing Street on a manifesto pledge for another referendum and a rejoin party line commitment. I saw it in my tea leaves at breakfast.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,079

    Nigelb said:

    .

    On Greenland and USA

    It seems weird to Europeans. ( me included )

    However probably about 25% of the USA was purchased from someone else.

    Louisiana purchase in 1803 from France and Alaska in 1867 from Russia

    The USA's last purchase was the Virgin Islands in 1917 from their old friends Denmark.

    In return for which they promised by treaty to acknowledge Denmark's control of Greenland.
    Of course, but now theyre back waving their cash and saying fancy selling ?

    No they aren't. The message is we're fucking having it. Like it or not and we'd prefer it if you didn't like it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,312
    Machado may be the staunchest advocate for peace there ever was (though I'm unsure what the eveidence is to support that), but she's pretty shit at the optics thing.

    https://x.com/marlene4719/status/2012174062907204008?s=20

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,333
    edited 9:41AM

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
    I'm still very angry about it - particularly the lack of respect shown to young people. I still vividly recall the Radio Scotland phone-in where pensioners wanted young people to be banned from going out so they could safely go to the pub. Absolute *****. The lack of personal responsibility too - depending entirely on lockdowns rather than telling everyone to lose some weight and get fit so as to reduce the chance of ending up in hospital. The gigantic debt we ran up that continues to cripple our public finances (there should have been a National Crisis tax on high earners/wealth, sat in their gorgeous gardens and chucking £10ks into their ISAs while everyone else went insane and bankrupt).

    But I reserve my anger for the politicians. It's their job to get this right. Be honest - if it was Starmer rather than Johnson, Biden rather than Trump, it wouldn't be the scientists being threatened with jail.
    I think the country will have turned a corner if (when?) we are finally willing to confront Covid, lockdown and its legacy.

    There has been a frightening lack of insight or debate on the economic and fiscal policies, in particular, which underpin a number of the challenges we face now. All too often I fear this is because they were enabled by an unquestioning mainstream media who consistently sided with a more restrictions/more support mindset throughout the pandemic.
    The media, especially the broadcast media, were abysmal at a time when they needed to bring their “A” game.

    They should have quickly ditched the media and politics graduates for scientists with media training.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,157
    edited 9:41AM

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
    I'm still very angry about it - particularly the lack of respect shown to young people. I still vividly recall the Radio Scotland phone-in where pensioners wanted young people to be banned from going out so they could safely go to the pub. Absolute *****. The lack of personal responsibility too - depending entirely on lockdowns rather than telling everyone to lose some weight and get fit so as to reduce the chance of ending up in hospital. The gigantic debt we ran up that continues to cripple our public finances (there should have been a National Crisis tax on high earners/wealth, sat in their gorgeous gardens and chucking £10ks into their ISAs while everyone else went insane and bankrupt).

    But I reserve my anger for the politicians. It's their job to get this right. Be honest - if it was Starmer rather than Johnson, Biden rather than Trump, it wouldn't be the scientists being threatened with jail.
    I think the country will have turned a corner if (when?) we are finally willing to confront Covid, lockdown and its legacy.

    There has been a frightening lack of insight or debate on the economic and fiscal policies, in particular, which underpin a number of the challenges we face now. All too often I fear this is because they were enabled by an unquestioning mainstream media who consistently sided with a more restrictions/more support mindset throughout the pandemic.
    And there is a wide spectrum of views on this - those who make it a binary issue are entirely undermining their case because those opposing any sort of restrictions in spring 2020, or facemasks at all, are as batshit insane as those who wanted to permanently close nightclubs.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,124

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
    I'm still very angry about it - particularly the lack of respect shown to young people. I still vividly recall the Radio Scotland phone-in where pensioners wanted young people to be banned from going out so they could safely go to the pub. Absolute *****. The lack of personal responsibility too - depending entirely on lockdowns rather than telling everyone to lose some weight and get fit so as to reduce the chance of ending up in hospital. The gigantic debt we ran up that continues to cripple our public finances (there should have been a National Crisis tax on high earners/wealth, sat in their gorgeous gardens and chucking £10ks into their ISAs while everyone else went insane and bankrupt).

    But I reserve my anger for the politicians. It's their job to get this right. Be honest - if it was Starmer rather than Johnson, Biden rather than Trump, it wouldn't be the scientists being threatened with jail.
    I think the country will have turned a corner if (when?) we are finally willing to confront Covid, lockdown and its legacy.

    There has been a frightening lack of insight or debate on the economic and fiscal policies, in particular, which underpin a number of the challenges we face now. All too often I fear this is because they were enabled by an unquestioning mainstream media who consistently sided with a more restrictions/more support mindset throughout the pandemic.
    Confronting the legacy of Covid can't happen until people fully accept that lockdown happened and the rights and wrongs of it can not be changed.
    The debate is still stuck at the time of Covid.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 543

    Good morning

    Boris Johnson holds nothing back in attacking 'narcissistic defections and praising Kemi Badenoch [daily mail]

    Any hope by the Boris disciples now in Reform of him joining them is for the birds

    But now Jenrick has gone, Johnson is the natural heir to Badenochiasm. He needs a seat in Parliament before he stabs her in the back and returns to Downing Street on a manifesto pledge for another referendum and a rejoin party line commitment. I saw it in my tea leaves at breakfast.
    (Try taking them out of the tea-bag next time!)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,079
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
    I'm still very angry about it - particularly the lack of respect shown to young people. I still vividly recall the Radio Scotland phone-in where pensioners wanted young people to be banned from going out so they could safely go to the pub. Absolute *****. The lack of personal responsibility too - depending entirely on lockdowns rather than telling everyone to lose some weight and get fit so as to reduce the chance of ending up in hospital. The gigantic debt we ran up that continues to cripple our public finances (there should have been a National Crisis tax on high earners/wealth, sat in their gorgeous gardens and chucking £10ks into their ISAs while everyone else went insane and bankrupt).

    But I reserve my anger for the politicians. It's their job to get this right. Be honest - if it was Starmer rather than Johnson, Biden rather than Trump, it wouldn't be the scientists being threatened with jail.
    I think the country will have turned a corner if (when?) we are finally willing to confront Covid, lockdown and its legacy.

    There has been a frightening lack of insight or debate on the economic and fiscal policies, in particular, which underpin a number of the challenges we face now. All too often I fear this is because they were enabled by an unquestioning mainstream media who consistently sided with a more restrictions/more support mindset throughout the pandemic.
    And there is a wide spectrum of views on this - those who make it a binary issue are entirely undermining their case because those opposing any sort of restrictions in spring 2020, or facemasks at all, are as batshit insane as those who wanted to permanently close nightclubs.
    The conceited right wing pricks on here who are angry about lockdowns, etc. are really just angry at themselves. They barricaded themselves into their houses for months on end just because utter fucking charlatans and liars like Johnson and Hancock told them to.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,569
    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
    I'm still very angry about it - particularly the lack of respect shown to young people. I still vividly recall the Radio Scotland phone-in where pensioners wanted young people to be banned from going out so they could safely go to the pub. Absolute *****. The lack of personal responsibility too - depending entirely on lockdowns rather than telling everyone to lose some weight and get fit so as to reduce the chance of ending up in hospital. The gigantic debt we ran up that continues to cripple our public finances (there should have been a National Crisis tax on high earners/wealth, sat in their gorgeous gardens and chucking £10ks into their ISAs while everyone else went insane and bankrupt).

    But I reserve my anger for the politicians. It's their job to get this right. Be honest - if it was Starmer rather than Johnson, Biden rather than Trump, it wouldn't be the scientists being threatened with jail.
    I think the country will have turned a corner if (when?) we are finally willing to confront Covid, lockdown and its legacy.

    There has been a frightening lack of insight or debate on the economic and fiscal policies, in particular, which underpin a number of the challenges we face now. All too often I fear this is because they were enabled by an unquestioning mainstream media who consistently sided with a more restrictions/more support mindset throughout the pandemic.
    Confronting the legacy of Covid can't happen until people fully accept that lockdown happened and the rights and wrongs of it can not be changed.
    The debate is still stuck at the time of Covid.
    Potentially another benefit of seeing the back of Starmer and Reeves.

    That debate won’t move on until the key players in it have left the stage. And the current PM/Chancellor are too involved in the arguments at the time (fundamentally being on the side of spending more).
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 18,178
    If you want a reckoning around COVID-19, I recommend you read the latest COVID-19 Inquiry report. It lays out events, how decisions were made, in detail, with evidence. Your tax money paid for it, you might as well read it!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 66,112
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    Yup. Exactly

    I feel it myself. The anger has ebbed. Not because the injustice was in fact modest, it was catastrophic and Satanic

    I just can’t bear thinking about the pandemic. Worst time of my life. Move on
    I'm still very angry about it - particularly the lack of respect shown to young people. I still vividly recall the Radio Scotland phone-in where pensioners wanted young people to be banned from going out so they could safely go to the pub. Absolute *****. The lack of personal responsibility too - depending entirely on lockdowns rather than telling everyone to lose some weight and get fit so as to reduce the chance of ending up in hospital. The gigantic debt we ran up that continues to cripple our public finances (there should have been a National Crisis tax on high earners/wealth, sat in their gorgeous gardens and chucking £10ks into their ISAs while everyone else went insane and bankrupt).

    But I reserve my anger for the politicians. It's their job to get this right. Be honest - if it was Starmer rather than Johnson, Biden rather than Trump, it wouldn't be the scientists being threatened with jail.
    Just thinking about minor aspects of the pandemic - the madness of it all - washing your hands as you sing Happy Birthday - the supermarkets with arrow signs down the aisles - the ludicrous saucepan banging to save the fucking NHS - makes me feel simultaneously bewildered, disbelieving, and mutinous, with a side order of suicidal bleakness, as I remember how sad and alone I was in lockdown 3

    So, I don't think about it. We remember wars and forget plagues, for this reason, as a wise writer noted, quite early in the pando

    https://unherd.com/2020/05/why-we-remember-wars-but-forget-plagues/

    May 2020!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,333
    edited 9:56AM

    If you want a reckoning around COVID-19, I recommend you read the latest COVID-19 Inquiry report. It lays out events, how decisions were made, in detail, with evidence. Your tax money paid for it, you might as well read it!

    Very typical of these sort of things, it’s a very expensive way of analysing what happened in the worst possible way. Transport accident investigations don’t have everyone turning up with barristers, they just agree to tell the truth even if they screwed up, knowing that there’s no personal repercussions for their testimony.

    Let’s hope the next chapter is better, at looking forward to how government might better deal with the next massive national emergency.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,259
    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT…

    MaxPB said:

    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Theory: A social media ban is great news for pubs.

    kyf_100 said:

    I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?

    For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?

    And how can any of it be effectively enforced?

    Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.

    And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.

    How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?

    Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
    Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
    Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.

    Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
    It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
    Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/health-authorities-issue-measles-alert-at-creationist-museum/
    Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.

    * Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.

    ** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
    And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.

    All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
    Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.

    But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.

    The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
    Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.

    I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.

    I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
    In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
    Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".

    The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
    This is a fantasy in your head. Read the COVID-19 Inquiry for what actually happened. Boris was in charge throughout (well, except when he was in hospital).
    MaxPB spends his time whining about PB centrists - but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up. It's a bit deranged tbh, and "the Right" would be insane to take that path rather than the one starting to appear under Badenoch.

    On Streeting, I think this perception comes from the fact he's an aggressive and energetic communicator. That's a big contrast with the rest of the government, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to outshine Starmer. It's almost impossible not to.
    Polls say you are wrong

    40-50% of the country would, right now, vote for Reform or the Greens. That’s not centrism

    Similarly, 52% of the country voted for the extremely-non-centrist Brexit

    One of the many many faults of middlebrow mediocre centrist dorks, such as those which infest PB, is to glibly presume “everyone is a boring clueless sensible centrist like me”
    That's not what I said. What proportion of Brits do you think would support locking up civil servants and scientists from COVID and "throwing away the key"?
    You literally said “99% of the country is a centrist”
    Fuck me, you've spent too long at the Telegraph

    "but 99% of the population is a centrist if you're the kind of person who advocates for locking COVID scientists up"
    But I don’t think even that’s true. Huge numbers of people are very angry about lockdowns and masks and the rest. So yeah I think far more than 1% of the country would like to see the scientists responsible in jail

    Likewise, Vance was part of the Lancet/Fauci cover-up of potential lab leak. The attempt to gaslight us all into thinking that was a “racist conspiracy theory”

    He should be in a supermax jail in Nevada
    Agreed. That certain key individuals have not faced justice can only really be that everyone has Covid ptsd and wants to forget it. Trillions of dollars of economic damage, millions of early deaths.

    The easiest thing psychologically (and hence politically) is to just accept that it was no one’s fault it started, blame those who were anti lockdown for making things worse and move on with your life.
    It could also be because they haven't committed indictable crimes, or they can't be proved to have done so beyond reasonable doubt?

    I hated the COVID lockdowns myself and knew they would be disastrous, and not necessarily stop the pandemic spreading at all, though they could have slowed it by a few days. But locking people up just because you disagree with them is wrong and a dangerous precedent anyway, no matter how satisfying. COVID measures were implemented by Parliament, with no more than the usual amount of official lying that accompanies anything the government really wants to do, and had overwhelming public support.

    Indeed many wanted COVID measures to be much harsher. So in a way, we have to admire the government's restraint - unlike if the current cretins had been in charge.
    Indeed. It’s an unpopular opinion, but having someone like Boris as PM, whose instinct was to keep freedoms, and someone like Cummings next to him, who understood the need for accurate data and computer modelling, were big positives for the country.

    The current lot would have been considerably worse.
    Not necessarily.

    Boris was keen on freedom, sure.

    But the consequence of that was his failure to apply the brakes when the lights turned amber. So when they turned red a few days later (which they were always likely to) we ended up with the emergency stop of lockdowns.

    Sometimes, wanting something is what stops you having it.
Sign In or Register to comment.