It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
Are you sure?
There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.
If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next
This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
I'm not sure how that changes my central argument, that it's an illegal activity. No amount of permission slips changes that basic fact.
The police also say that they are expressly "facilitating" this BLM vigil. That seems to go beyond a permissive stance, into actual encouragement
It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
Are you sure?
There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.
If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next
This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other
I think "sensible aversion to supporting thuggish far right groups" is still there. People are not in a "war for their survival" and "extreme measures" are not justified.
It's a PREDICTION. He made this part of his prediction on June 10th:
And what happened? The guy who urinated next to the policeman's memorial got jail, for a misplaced leak, the BLM rioters who beat up white people have so far got nothing.
Given that this is a site dedicated to political forecasting, it it surely rash to dismiss someone who, so far, seems right on the forecasting button.
In politics dismissal is surely the first step.
The source concerned is obviously not British.
I'm pretty sure that all the stuff about the Russians trying to mess about, historically, in our electoral process is nonsense. This though is roughly what I'd expect, and thus designed to be spotted.
Hard to say. It rather depends how that segment of the population willing to go out in the first place breaks down between those who don't care about the disease (whether through ignorance or wilfully on purpose) and those who do but are weighing up the risk of their actions in a considered fashion.
Outdoor activities are low risk, especially if you're lolling about on a beach or in a park and not interacting socially with other family groups. You're probably not going to be touching contaminated hard surfaces and the whole environment is being constantly saturated with UV radiation. If a carrier of the disease gets anywhere near you then you're nevertheless unlikely to catch it from them unless they cough in your face, and prevalence of the illness amongst the general population is relatively low in any event.
I would imagine that quite a lot of people who have managed to acquire some knowledge of this virus would be a lot happier going to the beach than the supermarket, for example.
Beyond that, if you're young (and especially if you're not living with a vulnerable person) then you might take the view that you're so unlikely to suffer serious consequences if you catch the wretched thing that you might as well go out and enjoy yourself. Regardless of whether you regard this as to any degree selfish or not, it's certainly understandable.
It is understandable and I don't disagree with much of what you have said unless infections start to rise steeply again.
However the downside is that the more the younger end of the spectrum don't appear to give a sh1t whether they get the virus or not the more the older end will simply stay at home. For better or worse much of the nation's disposable income resides in the latter category.
I was talking to a restaurant owning friend of mine recently and his big worry was that the indications were that the older clientele won't return any time soon. Without them they are no where near viable. That is born out from anecdotes from friends who are, in the main over 50, fit and fairly comfortably off. I have friends who are objectively not in the least bit vulnerable but haven't been inside a shop for 3 months. Most are now contemplating going to like minded friends for dinner but won't be contemplating a restaurant this year.
Scenes like those in Bournemouth just reinforce their views. The attitude of the oldies may not be rational but a lot of businesses are going to struggle if it doesn't change.
That's fair up to a point, but I'm not sure that pictures from crowded beaches are going to make much difference to the judgments of the more cautious/anxious sections of the population. As with the young people I mentioned, so with them: they're going to make decisions based on their knowledge of the virus, what they perceive the risks of various kinds of behaviour to be, and how much risk they are prepared to tolerate - irrespective of whether or not groups of twentysomethings are lounging about in the Sun with beers.
But yes, some businesses have already succumbed and I'm sure there will be many more casualties: unshuttering certainly won't save all of our leisure and hospitality concerns in the medium term, any more than it will retail. I've been consistent in my opinion on this matter for some time: the number of businesses in these sectors is going to shrink until the remaining selection of outlets matches the size and preferences of the clientele willing to patronise them. Concerned oldies might feel sufficiently safe and sufficiently motivated to sustain a lot of garden centres, for example, but if you're a clothing retailer that's particularly geared towards the more mature market then I think you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
Theatres, restaurants, and art galleries are completely fucked. I despair what our town centres will look and feel like in a couple of years. It will be like the 1970s again.
Except this will be repeated around the world, not just in the UK.
I expect that museums and galleries will get by with the aid of time slots and ticketing now (and most of the big national institutions and many of the smaller ones didn't charge for admission anyway.) How bad things get for the theatres, and those other sectors that the Government is still reluctant to let re-open, depends on how much more state support (if any) is forthcoming in future.
To suggest that non-takeaway cafes and restaurants have had it as a sector is hyperbole, but certainly a large number of them will be driven to the wall. You would expect that surviving businesses would be disproportionately concentrated in those better-off parts of the country with larger concentrations of people in knowledge economy and higher-end manufacturing jobs - higher disposable incomes, lower unemployment spikes - and where they have large enough premises to make a go of socially-distanced dining.
If you manage a substantial country gastropub in the Chilterns with a nice big beer garden then you might be able to ride this out; if you're running a tiny restaurant somewhere in the West End, for example, with loads of tables all crammed together in a postage-stamp space (for the privilege of which you must pay a gargantuan rent,) then you've probably had it.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Fortunately it is off season in Late Autumn, but the ski resorts will be quiet in a few months. Possibly by the Christmas/summer season things will have picked up.
The problem is that the system that NZ have adopted (and I am not criticising it) means that they can only maintain their completely open internal lifestyle by having very strict controls at their borders. Since this effectively means a compulsory 2 week quarantine for anyone entering the country I don't see how things can pick up by Christmas, or indeed at any time in the future until we have a vaccine.
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
I'm not sure how that changes my central argument, that it's an illegal activity. No amount of permission slips changes that basic fact.
The police also say that they are expressly "facilitating" this BLM vigil. That seems to go beyond a permissive stance, into actual encouragement
Could the police be sued?
The decision can be judicially reviewed on the grounds of illegality?
Of course this Government is not a fan of judicial review.
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
I'm not sure how that changes my central argument, that it's an illegal activity. No amount of permission slips changes that basic fact.
The police also say that they are expressly "facilitating" this BLM vigil. That seems to go beyond a permissive stance, into actual encouragement
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Bit early to say......and what would you do with illegal immigrants?
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Fortunately it is off season in Late Autumn, but the ski resorts will be quiet in a few months. Possibly by the Christmas/summer season things will have picked up.
Except the price that New Zealand has to pay for keeping itself Covid-free is near-total isolation from most of the planet for an indefinite period. Whilst Australia will probably get there eventually, there's little indication that large parts of the rest of the globe are going to succeed in eliminating the virus and keeping their cases down to zero thereafter - this means that New Zealand might be confronted with the possibility of having to self-isolate for many, many years.
If an effective vaccine or a very good treatment doesn't ride to the rescue within the next twelve months or so, then New Zealand will need to have a serious national conversation about how long they're willing to keep this up for.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Time will tell if he is in fact Sir Winston Churchill or the Churchill dog.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
I posted on here over a month ago that Trump was finished and that Biden would have to kill a child for Trump to have a chance.
It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.
The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.
What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.
Until Biden gets well over 50% it is clear that just as in 2016 there are still a lot of silent Trump voters
Both Clinton and Trump did better in the election than they did in the final polls of the campaign.
And guess what? That regularly happens (not always) but usually.
It's not because of "shy voters", it's because many people who say "I don't know", don't vote.
Imagine that 40% of people said Democrat, 40% said Republican, and 20% said "don't know". Come election day, the result will be close to 50/50.
You also keep repeating that Trump won the vast majority of the undecideds in 2016. That's simply not true. The total increase for Clinton and Trump was 6.6 percentage points. Of this 6.6, it split roughly 60:40 in favour of Trump.
@Philip_Thompson you do realise your party wants to fundamentally weaken the Human Rights Act?
I think it wants it written and judged in Britain, rather than a European court. Nothing wrong with that.
What does this even mean?
Erm, having the legislation prescribed by Parliament and enforced by a court based in the UK.
What legislation? The Human Rights Act 1998 is exactly what you describe.
Well that's a transposition of the ECHR, but fair enough, we're already half way there.
Its not a complete transposition, and it does not prevent the Government from legislating contrary to the ECtHR, it just requires them to explicitly do so. I’d love to hear the argument why this is a bad thing.
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
I'm not sure how that changes my central argument, that it's an illegal activity. No amount of permission slips changes that basic fact.
Again Human Rights Act trumps COVID regulations and in this instance so it should.
The HRA is meaningless if the Government can make protests unlawful. If an authoritarian government came to power and introduced "emergency" legislation that confined people at home and people want to protest against that emergency legislation should that be illegal?
If so that is an awful power to grant to a government. Under no circumstances should the right of free assembly be stopped by "emergency" regulations.
That sounds like 'I wish they didn't have that power, so that power cannot be possible'. Parliament has the power to do any number of things that would be outrageous and terrible, but would still for want of a better word be legal. It's moral and political realities which prevent those types of action.
As to your last para, parliament definitely stopped the right of free assembly. I'd be astonished if the law passed was to disallow free assembly except where people on their own judgement decided they had a good reason, which would apply to every protest ever, it would make the law as passed completely pointless.
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Bit early to say......and what would you do with illegal immigrants?
Not drive a van past them asking them to go home would be a start. A clearer signal that you have no effing way to compel them to go home is hard to imagine. What next, 'Don't burgle' on a blimp?
It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
Are you sure?
There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.
If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next
This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other
Maybe the Great British Public aren't as keen on kneeling as they've been told they have to be?
Starmer’s ratings, at least in the Redfield and Wilton poll, have not dropped, Johnson’s have risen, meaning it is likely something Johnson did. I think the popular lockdown announcement has caused this boost.
Clearly the right consider this culture war stuff a winner, which is fine, elections are there to be won. Concentrate on your strengths. But we don’t have an election for another 4 years. As you delight in repetitively reminding us, you won the last one. In the meantime it would perhaps be a sign of a responsible party, interested more in governing properly than winning an election nearly half a decade away, to focus more on this bastard of a virus that has been floating around these last four months than transient damage (even Coulson was fished out and repaired) to a few statues and sundry symbolic but, in the current context, ultimately trivial gestures.
The latest virus graphs and numbers are updated on here every day by Malmesbury, and they show an excellent rate of decline - contrary to detractors' claims, the lockdown strategy has worked exactly as intended. Coming out of it safely will be the trickiest part, but I don't see any reason to panic just yet.
As far as the 'culture war stuff' is concerned, I don't consider it primarily an electoral tactic - although it will be an extremely effective one - but a first-order issue that strikes to the heart of what we are as a society. The project of cultural cancellation that is currently underway across the Western world is both vast and terrifying in its scope, and it needs to be countered effectively by common-sense conservatism and indeed what used to be known as liberal principles, back when liberalism meant a commitment to a 'live-and-let-live' philosophy rather than a headlong plunge towards a Maoist Year Zero.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
So am I - although the proportion of that contribution that's domestic also has to be considered.
I think I recall reading somewhere that about 80% of the tourist trade in both the UK and Germany consists of people from one part of the country visiting another.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Time will tell if he is in fact Sir Winston Churchill or the Churchill dog.
She buggered up something that didn’t really need doing. He is buggering up something truly critical.
"The virus is winning [in the US], and all indications are that the next few months will be a terrifying nightmare of rampant disease and economic disruption."
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Time will tell if he is in fact Sir Winston Churchill or the Churchill dog.
@Philip_Thompson you do realise your party wants to fundamentally weaken the Human Rights Act?
I think it wants it written and judged in Britain, rather than a European court. Nothing wrong with that.
What does this even mean?
Erm, having the legislation prescribed by Parliament and enforced by a court based in the UK.
What legislation? The Human Rights Act 1998 is exactly what you describe.
Well that's a transposition of the ECHR, but fair enough, we're already half way there.
Its not a complete transposition, and it does not prevent the Government from legislating contrary to the ECtHR, it just requires them to explicitly do so. I’d love to hear the argument why this is a bad thing.
The general concept of having a foreign court with jurisdiction, perhaps?
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.
It was directed against illegal immigrants, Philip!
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
The Downton Abbey effect.
It's a bit crazy from a UK tourism perspective that they're not making more Downton.
I travel to Northern Ireland regularly. I stay in an hotel near The International Airport. There were buses full of Chinese tourists on the Game of Thrones tours. Maybe two bus loads every night in my hotel.
As a nation we are like a big Disneyland that has just closed its doors to visitors.
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
The Police do not have the legal power to grant permission for a protest at the current time - that is the point. Gatherings of more than 6 people are not legal
The police are humiliating themselves in the eyes of the average person at the moment IMO.
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
I might take the train to the Riviera this year
Emirates Business Class seats are great.
Not the one in the middle. Seriously 2-3-2 in 2020?
Qatar (and Oman) much better -even the non-Q-Suite product.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
The Downton Abbey effect.
It's a bit crazy from a UK tourism perspective that they're not making more Downton.
I think I might be the only person on earth who has not seen a single frame of it.
I have seen three or four episodes. It's ok. Julian Fellowes basically writes the same story again and again (and again), but he does it well, the dialogue isn't leaden or trite like so many TV dramas.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
Not just surprised, disbelieving. France is the most visited nation in the world, and gets lots of high spending tourists too, in Paris, the Riviera, etc
According to this in 2018 international tourism receipts:
USA $214bn Spain $74bn France $67bn Thailand $63bn UK $52bn
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Bit early to say......and what would you do with illegal immigrants?
I'd deal with them on a case by case basis same as other illegal activities.
I would not send vans around minority estates saying "Go Home".
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.
It was directed against illegal immigrants, Philip!
I'm not sure whether its a reading problem or a comprehension challenge. Still not clear what he'd do with illegal immigrants - invite them to stay? Tell them to stay here? Carry on breaking the law? Any other laws its fine for them to break?
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
The Police do not have the legal power to grant permission for a protest at the current time - that is the point. Gatherings of more than 6 people are not legal
The police are humiliating themselves in the eyes of the average person at the moment IMO.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
I might take the train to the Riviera this year
Emirates Business Class seats are great.
They are. The best maybe. But I am not going to pay £5k for a lovely seat.
I want the whole champagne, canapes, Michelin food and free neck rubs malarkey. I want grovelling and Bollinger, not lying there in a mask sipping water, nibbling a Pret sandwich.
This is a big problem for airlines. So much money comes from Biz.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.
It was directed against illegal immigrants, Philip!
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Bit early to say......and what would you do with illegal immigrants?
Not drive a van past them asking them to go home would be a start.
That's what you wouldn't do.
What would you do?
Just let it rest? Stay here? Carry on breaking the law? Any other laws they can break while they're at it?
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
They did use a relative quantifier. The full sentence could have read "Of the data we had, looking across categories of card spending, we find that the level of spending in restaurants three weeks ago was the strongest predictor of the rise in new virus cases over the subsequent three weeks, and that was basically a shit indicator so our data was worthless"
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
I might take the train to the Riviera this year
Emirates Business Class seats are great.
They are. The best maybe. But I am not going to pay £5k for a lovely seat.
I want the whole champagne, canapes, Michelin food and free neck rubs malarkey. I want grovelling and Bollinger, not lying there in a mask sipping water, nibbling a Pret sandwich.
This is a big problem for airlines. So much money comes from Biz.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Bit early to say......and what would you do with illegal immigrants?
Not drive a van past them asking them to go home would be a start.
That's what you wouldn't do.
What would you do?
Just let it rest? Stay here? Carry on breaking the law? Any other laws they can break while they're at it?
You deal with law breakers by dealing with them based upon evidence against them as individuals.
Not target an area because of its racial composition.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
So am I - although the proportion of that contribution that's domestic also has to be considered.
I think I recall reading somewhere that about 80% of the tourist trade in both the UK and Germany consists of people from one part of the country visiting another.
That might be true by visitor number, but is not by spend.
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
I might take the train to the Riviera this year
Emirates Business Class seats are great.
They are. The best maybe. But I am not going to pay £5k for a lovely seat.
I want the whole champagne, canapes, Michelin food and free neck rubs malarkey. I want grovelling and Bollinger, not lying there in a mask sipping water, nibbling a Pret sandwich.
This is a big problem for airlines. So much money comes from Biz.
It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
Are you sure?
There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.
If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next
This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other
That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
You seem triggered
Yes SeanT/Bryonic/eadric LadyG, I get irritated by your race-baiting bullshit and I'm not embarrassed to acknowledge that or call it out.
Please ask the mods to check my IP
You are far too obvious, within a couple of hours you are banging on about statues again when barely anyone has mentioned them in days.
Now the lockdown has been relaxed, the weathers nice and they've released the pressure of being cooped up for three months, even the students cant be bothered to deface them anymore
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
I might take the train to the Riviera this year
Emirates Business Class seats are great.
They are. The best maybe. But I am not going to pay £5k for a lovely seat.
I want the whole champagne, canapes, Michelin food and free neck rubs malarkey. I want grovelling and Bollinger, not lying there in a mask sipping water, nibbling a Pret sandwich.
This is a big problem for airlines. So much money comes from Biz.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Bit early to say......and what would you do with illegal immigrants?
Not drive a van past them asking them to go home would be a start.
That's what you wouldn't do.
What would you do?
Just let it rest? Stay here? Carry on breaking the law? Any other laws they can break while they're at it?
I'd carry on doing the sterling work the poster claims is happening already, and save the money on the ridiculous vans.
It would be fairly simple to test effectiveness and value for money by looking at how many illegal immigrants texted 'Home' to 78070. Do we have that information?
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Bit early to say......and what would you do with illegal immigrants?
Not drive a van past them asking them to go home would be a start.
That's what you wouldn't do.
What would you do?
Just let it rest? Stay here? Carry on breaking the law? Any other laws they can break while they're at it?
You deal with law breakers by dealing with them based upon evidence against them as individuals.
Not target an area because of its racial composition.
Was it targeted because of racial composition, or because Border Force believed illegal immigrants lived there?
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
I might take the train to the Riviera this year
Emirates Business Class seats are great.
They are. The best maybe. But I am not going to pay £5k for a lovely seat.
I want the whole champagne, canapes, Michelin food and free neck rubs malarkey. I want grovelling and Bollinger, not lying there in a mask sipping water, nibbling a Pret sandwich.
This is a big problem for airlines. So much money comes from Biz.
Business Class = Spiv Class!
Agree entirely. First or nothin'.
Typical Boris Tory!
Real men of the people like Jeremy Hunt used to rough it in the back, even when he was Foreign Secretary, I know I have the photos!
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.
It was directed against illegal immigrants, Philip!
And sent to minority areas. Disgusting racism.
It was directed against illegal immigrants, Philip! I don't find the van "racist", personally.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
Not just surprised, disbelieving. France is the most visited nation in the world, and gets lots of high spending tourists too, in Paris, the Riviera, etc
Don't forget that companies like BA and easyjet benefit from overseas holidays. Going to Italy and spending £140 on return flights keeps a lot of British pilots and cabin crew in employment.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
She was at least rather more conservative than you are and for her faults she did have a sense of personal duty and got the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement Boris ultimately passed
If your sense of personal duty involves sending vans to tell people to "Go Home" then I'd rather do without your personal duty thank you very much.
It was directed against illegal immigrants, Philip!
I'm not sure whether its a reading problem or a comprehension challenge. Still not clear what he'd do with illegal immigrants - invite them to stay? Tell them to stay here? Carry on breaking the law? Any other laws its fine for them to break?
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Is anyone prudish enough in 2020 to care about pornography?
Seriously are there still people nowadays that repressed that they view that as immoral?
Theresa May? Porn block and all that.
Urgh! Authoritarian vile woman, good riddance.
Don't you think that is a trifle excessive?
No. I think its understated.
She is the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime and an embarrassment that she is an MP or a PM from my party. Don't get me started, my opinion of her is not excessive, this is excessive:
Worst Prime Minister? I'll raise you Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson is a far greater PM.
Bit early to say......and what would you do with illegal immigrants?
I'd deal with them on a case by case basis same as other illegal activities.
I would not send vans around minority estates saying "Go Home".
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
I might take the train to the Riviera this year
Emirates Business Class seats are great.
They are. The best maybe. But I am not going to pay £5k for a lovely seat.
I want the whole champagne, canapes, Michelin food and free neck rubs malarkey. I want grovelling and Bollinger, not lying there in a mask sipping water, nibbling a Pret sandwich.
This is a big problem for airlines. So much money comes from Biz.
Business Class = Spiv Class!
Agree entirely. First or nothin'.
Typical Boris Tory!
Real men of the people like Jeremy Hunt used to rough it in the back, even when he was Foreign Secretary, I know I have the photos!
I posted on here over a month ago that Trump was finished and that Biden would have to kill a child for Trump to have a chance.
It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.
The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.
What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.
Until Biden gets well over 50% it is clear that just as in 2016 there are still a lot of silent Trump voters
Both Clinton and Trump did better in the election than they did in the final polls of the campaign.
And guess what? That regularly happens (not always) but usually.
It's not because of "shy voters", it's because many people who say "I don't know", don't vote.
Imagine that 40% of people said Democrat, 40% said Republican, and 20% said "don't know". Come election day, the result will be close to 50/50.
You also keep repeating that Trump won the vast majority of the undecideds in 2016. That's simply not true. The total increase for Clinton and Trump was 6.6 percentage points. Of this 6.6, it split roughly 60:40 in favour of Trump.
This poll had Trump narrowly ahead earlier this month by 48% to 47% noting 'only 37 percent of Trump voters would want their friends and family to know how they had voted while 74 percent of Biden supporters are comfortable with it being known, suggesting there is a “silent vote” for the President.'
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
The Downton Abbey effect.
It's a bit crazy from a UK tourism perspective that they're not making more Downton.
I travel to Northern Ireland regularly. I stay in an hotel near The International Airport. There were buses full of Chinese tourists on the Game of Thrones tours. Maybe two bus loads every night in my hotel.
As a nation we are like a big Disneyland that has just closed its doors to visitors.
I'm hardly an authority on the tourist sector, but I would've thought that impacts from closure to foreign visitors would fall disproportionately on specific localities. I dare say that a large proportion of overseas visitors never get further than London, and those who do flock to particular attractions such as that which you mentioned. Besides GoT tourism, there's the likes of Bicester Village (also beloved of the Chinese,) Bronte Country (frequented by the Japanese,) and the Scottish golf courses (wealthy Americans.)
Meanwhile, I would imagine that the focus of most of the industry outside London is predominantly domestic.
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
That doesn't change the fact it's illegal, I linked the relevant regulations. Besides, do we know that such consent was sought?
Considering the Police know about it and are Tweeting about it, it seems reasonable to assume that it was both sought and granted.
The Police do not have the legal power to grant permission for a protest at the current time - that is the point. Gatherings of more than 6 people are not legal
The police are humiliating themselves in the eyes of the average person at the moment IMO.
If the people in the second tweet were reacting to the first, I have some sympathy with them
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
Not just surprised, disbelieving. France is the most visited nation in the world, and gets lots of high spending tourists too, in Paris, the Riviera, etc
According to this in 2018 international tourism receipts:
USA $214bn Spain $74bn France $67bn Thailand $63bn UK $52bn
@Philip_Thompson you do realise your party wants to fundamentally weaken the Human Rights Act?
I think it wants it written and judged in Britain, rather than a European court. Nothing wrong with that.
What does this even mean?
Erm, having the legislation prescribed by Parliament and enforced by a court based in the UK.
What legislation? The Human Rights Act 1998 is exactly what you describe.
Well that's a transposition of the ECHR, but fair enough, we're already half way there.
Its not a complete transposition, and it does not prevent the Government from legislating contrary to the ECtHR, it just requires them to explicitly do so. I’d love to hear the argument why this is a bad thing.
The general concept of having a foreign court with jurisdiction, perhaps?
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
You have misunderstood the law. The laws about getting police consent were for normal times.
The Coronavirus regulations ban such gatherings. There is no provision in such regulations for obtaining consent. The police should not be permitting this demonstration and by purporting to permit one type of demo and not others they are, arguably, acting ultra vires (ie beyond their powers) and their decision could be challenged via judicial review.
They bloody well ought to be challenged on this. The law applies equally to all or not at all.
I find it quite amazing that the police are sanctioning an illegal activity, saying they will only actually enforce the law if other groups also protest, and only then on that other group. I thought the law was suppose to be applied evenly?
We are witnessing a breakdown in one of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I can see why Patel and the Home Office aren't issuing orders to Chief Constables not to stop the protests - but they really should.
Protesting is fine, it's the fact that one group is allowed (sanctioned by the police themselves, no less) and any others are not.
The law gives a method to apply for consent. If BLM have done that but others haven't then why shouldn't one be allowed but not others?
You have misunderstood the law. The laws about getting police consent were for normal times.
The Coronavirus regulations ban such gatherings. There is no provision in such regulations for obtaining consent. The police should not be permitting this demonstration and by purporting to permit one type of demo and not others they are, arguably, acting ultra vires (ie beyond their powers) and their decision could be challenged via judicial review.
They bloody well ought to be challenged on this. The law applies equally to all or not at all.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
Surprised the UK (11%) is higher than France (9.5%) and nearly double Ireland (6.2%).
The Downton Abbey effect.
It's a bit crazy from a UK tourism perspective that they're not making more Downton.
I travel to Northern Ireland regularly. I stay in an hotel near The International Airport. There were buses full of Chinese tourists on the Game of Thrones tours. Maybe two bus loads every night in my hotel.
As a nation we are like a big Disneyland that has just closed its doors to visitors.
I'm hardly an authority on the tourist sector, but I would've thought that impacts from closure to foreign visitors would fall disproportionately on specific localities. I dare say that a large proportion of overseas visitors never get further than London, and those who do flock to particular attractions such as that which you mentioned. Besides GoT tourism, there's the likes of Bicester Village (also beloved of the Chinese,) Bronte Country (frequented by the Japanese,) and the Scottish golf courses (wealthy Americans.)
Meanwhile, I would imagine that the focus of most of the industry outside London is predominantly domestic.
I think the idea of themed tours for overseas tourists has grown with the popularity of TV shows. I suspect up to a few years ago the Giant's Causeway was predominantly for domestic fare. These days overseas tourists are bused in and out like never before.
We will take a massive hit inside and outside the M25.
Maybe the Great British Public aren't as keen on kneeling as they've been told they have to be?
Starmer’s ratings, at least in the Redfield and Wilton poll, have not dropped, Johnson’s have risen, meaning it is likely something Johnson did. I think the popular lockdown announcement has caused this boost.
Clearly the right consider this culture war stuff a winner, which is fine, elections are there to be won. Concentrate on your strengths. But we don’t have an election for another 4 years. As you delight in repetitively reminding us, you won the last one. In the meantime it would perhaps be a sign of a responsible party, interested more in governing properly than winning an election nearly half a decade away, to focus more on this bastard of a virus that has been floating around these last four months than transient damage (even Coulson was fished out and repaired) to a few statues and sundry symbolic but, in the current context, ultimately trivial gestures.
The latest virus graphs and numbers are updated on here every day by Malmesbury, and they show an excellent rate of decline - contrary to detractors' claims, the lockdown strategy has worked exactly as intended. Coming out of it safely will be the trickiest part, but I don't see any reason to panic just yet.
As far as the 'culture war stuff' is concerned, I don't consider it primarily an electoral tactic - although it will be an extremely effective one - but a first-order issue that strikes to the heart of what we are as a society. The project of cultural cancellation that is currently underway across the Western world is both vast and terrifying in its scope, and it needs to be countered effectively by common-sense conservatism and indeed what used to be known as liberal principles, back when liberalism meant a commitment to a 'live-and-let-live' philosophy rather than a headlong plunge towards a Maoist Year Zero.
Maoism had the power of the state behind it. The enforcers of any totalitarian ideology have the power of state institutions behind them. Protesters in the streets of Western cities and the journalists who support them are not backed by state or institutional power, but just the opposite: in every instance, they are in confrontation with it. You continually point out that you have control of the British state. You can’t claim to be oppressed. Your so called “conservatism” is actually a claim to a monopoly on historical and cultural truth. The minor (yes, minor) incidence of vandalism that should be rightly deplored are being exaggerated by your side to ferment division as an electoral tactic. Yes, an effective one, but it has nothing to do with mythic “cultural cancellation”.
There is no project of “cultural cancellation”. It is a catch-all for when people in power (like your party) face consequences for their actions or receive any type of criticism, something that they’re not used to. Conservatives rightly deplored Corbyn’s support of an anti Semitic mural because it was racist. When other expressions of racism are targeted, absurdly given you control all the levers of power, you get triggered.
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
I listened to a report on 5 live this morning of the experiences of a reporter who flew Gatwick to Inverness on EasyJet and it was horrific. The mask was worn throughout the terminal, on boarding and on the one hour flight, and additionally for all the time through baggage claim and beyond. The reporter reckoned on this one hour internal flight he had worn a mask for 4 and a half hours continuously. Furthermore, no food or drink was available on the plane, just water.
He went on to say on a flight to Europe you could add another couple of hours and if you had young children it would be impossible
As for long haul not a chance
Anyone listening would simply say no to all of that
Air travel has never been a pleasant experience anyway;
"For your safety" (sic) Emirates Business Class meals now come pre-packaged in a handy box. Goodness knows what its like in the cheap seats!
Good grief. So Business is now basically Economy? And Economy is like the galleys of ancient Rome.
I might take the train to the Riviera this year
Emirates Business Class seats are great.
They are. The best maybe. But I am not going to pay £5k for a lovely seat.
I want the whole champagne, canapes, Michelin food and free neck rubs malarkey. I want grovelling and Bollinger, not lying there in a mask sipping water, nibbling a Pret sandwich.
This is a big problem for airlines. So much money comes from Biz.
It isn't. They are making a political choice not to enforce the laws they are employed to uphold.
Are you sure?
There's a difference between a legally authorised and planned protest and an unplanned or counter one. Especially under current regulations.
If BLM have applied for and received consent for their protest but no other organisation have then its entirely appropriate for the Police to facilitate one but not the other.
Mass gatherings are illegal under the coronavirus legislation.
We seem to be somwhere between stage 4 and stage 5 of this comedian's famously predictive thread: what will happen next
This is the bit when the authorities start blatantly favouring one side over the other
That thread is a load of race-baiting white supremacy bullshit.
You seem triggered
Yes SeanT/Bryonic/eadric LadyG, I get irritated by your race-baiting bullshit and I'm not embarrassed to acknowledge that or call it out.
Please ask the mods to check my IP
You are far too obvious, within a couple of hours you are banging on about statues again when barely anyone has mentioned them in days.
Now the lockdown has been relaxed, the weathers nice and they've released the pressure of being cooped up for three months, even the students cant be bothered to deface them anymore
But I was assured that it was the end of civilisation as we know it.
Comments
The source concerned is obviously not British.
I'm pretty sure that all the stuff about the Russians trying to mess about, historically, in our electoral process is nonsense. This though is roughly what I'd expect, and thus designed to be spotted.
To suggest that non-takeaway cafes and restaurants have had it as a sector is hyperbole, but certainly a large number of them will be driven to the wall. You would expect that surviving businesses would be disproportionately concentrated in those better-off parts of the country with larger concentrations of people in knowledge economy and higher-end manufacturing jobs - higher disposable incomes, lower unemployment spikes - and where they have large enough premises to make a go of socially-distanced dining.
If you manage a substantial country gastropub in the Chilterns with a nice big beer garden then you might be able to ride this out; if you're running a tiny restaurant somewhere in the West End, for example, with loads of tables all crammed together in a postage-stamp space (for the privilege of which you must pay a gargantuan rent,) then you've probably had it.
Of course this Government is not a fan of judicial review.
Yeah, to be honest props to you on that front.
https://twitter.com/GunjanJS/status/1276231370692583426
https://twitter.com/GunjanJS/status/1276232420749123586
If an effective vaccine or a very good treatment doesn't ride to the rescue within the next twelve months or so, then New Zealand will need to have a serious national conversation about how long they're willing to keep this up for.
Both Clinton and Trump did better in the election than they did in the final polls of the campaign.
And guess what? That regularly happens (not always) but usually.
It's not because of "shy voters", it's because many people who say "I don't know", don't vote.
Imagine that 40% of people said Democrat, 40% said Republican, and 20% said "don't know". Come election day, the result will be close to 50/50.
You also keep repeating that Trump won the vast majority of the undecideds in 2016. That's simply not true. The total increase for Clinton and Trump was 6.6 percentage points. Of this 6.6, it split roughly 60:40 in favour of Trump.
As to your last para, parliament definitely stopped the right of free assembly. I'd be astonished if the law passed was to disallow free assembly except where people on their own judgement decided they had a good reason, which would apply to every protest ever, it would make the law as passed completely pointless.
As far as the 'culture war stuff' is concerned, I don't consider it primarily an electoral tactic - although it will be an extremely effective one - but a first-order issue that strikes to the heart of what we are as a society. The project of cultural cancellation that is currently underway across the Western world is both vast and terrifying in its scope, and it needs to be countered effectively by common-sense conservatism and indeed what used to be known as liberal principles, back when liberalism meant a commitment to a 'live-and-let-live' philosophy rather than a headlong plunge towards a Maoist Year Zero.
I think I recall reading somewhere that about 80% of the tourist trade in both the UK and Germany consists of people from one part of the country visiting another.
"The virus is winning [in the US], and all indications are that the next few months will be a terrifying nightmare of rampant disease and economic disruption."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-republicans.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
As a nation we are like a big Disneyland that has just closed its doors to visitors.
Qatar (and Oman) much better -even the non-Q-Suite product.
USA $214bn
Spain $74bn
France $67bn
Thailand $63bn
UK $52bn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings#International_tourism_receipts
and 2018 international tourism expenditures:
China $277bn
USA $144bn
Germany $94bn
UK $76bn
France $48bn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings#International_tourism_expenditures
I would not send vans around minority estates saying "Go Home".
At some point a tipping point will be reached.
What would you do?
Just let it rest? Stay here? Carry on breaking the law? Any other laws they can break while they're at it?
Not target an area because of its racial composition.
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1276584034005590018
It would be fairly simple to test effectiveness and value for money by looking at how many illegal immigrants texted 'Home' to 78070. Do we have that information?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YofLsS3vfOU
Real men of the people like Jeremy Hunt used to rough it in the back, even when he was Foreign Secretary, I know I have the photos!
https://www.travelodge.co.uk/news/protect.html
Despite criminal past, foreign policy expert George Nader had ties with high-level Clinton and Trump advisers
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/26/george-nader-mueller-probe-sentence-341624
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1292288/US-election-2020-donald-trump-poll-results-democracy-institute-of-america
Meanwhile, I would imagine that the focus of most of the industry outside London is predominantly domestic.
https://twitter.com/InvictaJane/status/1276453913886105600?s=20
https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1276216729245487104?s=20
The Coronavirus regulations ban such gatherings. There is no provision in such regulations for obtaining consent. The police should not be permitting this demonstration and by purporting to permit one type of demo and not others they are, arguably, acting ultra vires (ie beyond their powers) and their decision could be challenged via judicial review.
They bloody well ought to be challenged on this. The law applies equally to all or not at all.
We will take a massive hit inside and outside the M25.
There is no project of “cultural cancellation”. It is a catch-all for when people in power (like your party) face consequences for their actions or receive any type of criticism, something that they’re not used to. Conservatives rightly deplored Corbyn’s support of an anti Semitic mural because it was racist. When other expressions of racism are targeted, absurdly given you control all the levers of power, you get triggered.
- Basil Fawlty.