Blah Blah

I was going to write something along the same lines. We have a government and cabinet that is never accountable for its lies and failings. Of curse they feel like teflon. Who wouldn't?

Yes, Johnson had begun the distancing the day after it was published in full. What I don't understand, is how government ever expected to get away with it. Did they really think contributors would stay silent?

It is not a question of semantics though. The report concludes there is no institutional racism while pointing to the fact there clearly is. Worse than that, it deliberately omits any testimonies that identify potential institutional racism. That you seem to infer that is a question of language and semantics is pretty baffling. How about you ask instead, just why the report can't bring itself to acknowledge the obvious.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > I certainly wouldn't have 'expected' the exact same coverage on so many BBC platforms. It's > bloody weird in my opinion. > Meanwhile the government chooses to shut up shop while Belfast burns. Very convenient for Johnson. I am no Monarchist, but I can see why the death of the Queen's husband would be a major news event. We live in a Monarchy, with a history shaped by it. To underplay the importance of that institution is naive. As for Philip's gaffes, coverage is being respectful in its recollection of those. Not ignoring them, but not overtly pushing them either. I hated everything Thatcher stood for for example, but I took no part in celebrating her death. Whatever a person is or isn't, did or didn't do, death should always be met with dignity and grace. In time, history allows for debate of the merits of a person, but at point of death, compassion has to be shown for those directly impacted imo. As for Belfast, Parliament is in recess as it always is for Easter. Not sure why you think government have deliberately shut up shop there. The PM and NI secretary are in contact I am sure and the situation being monitored. MPs are back on Monday.

The coverage is to be expected to be fair. Whatever one thinks of Monarchy etc etc, the Queen has lost the closest person in her life after 73 years of marriage. Thoughts should be with her at this time.

Ted, anyone who starts a post with 'I'm not racist but', almost invariable goes on to display racist undertones in what follows. Slavery has a legacy. In fact exploitation of any group over another for any kind of gain has a legacy. Old money, that many of those wielding power at the top of our political and economic system benefit from, was born in the slave trade. When Boris Johnson used language like 'watermelon smiles', where do you think he learned such language? And it matters that the PM has that kind of record. It matters a lot. So how does that legacy of privilege and power play out? It is the reason why there is institutional racial bias as I point out in my post above. You never see that of course because you are not black. And that is the point really. Before you start accusing anyone of 'chips on their shoulder' consider first how their experience of life may differ to yours. Consider how their interactions with police and employers, may differ to yours. Sure, a lot of this is wrapped up in class privileges too, but even there, ask yourself why black people are over represented in lower socio-economic groups and under represented exponentially the higher up you go. Upward social mobility is falling for all in lower socio-economic groups. Why is that? As for language, when white people use the N word, it is nearly almost in a derogatory context. That does not mean to say that black people do not use that word in a derogatory context sometimes, and no, that is not ok either. Maybe you should just agree no-one should be using language in a derogatory way, whatever ethnicity they are. For the record, I don't think you are racist, but I do think you lack understanding of why black people feel held back or prejudiced in many areas. The statistics speak for themselves on that and I wish the report had been honest about the part institution racial bias plays in some of that.

And to be clear, here is a clear example of how problematic the report is. It acknowledges that black people are over represented in all areas of criminal justice. That black people are more likely to be stopped and searched, more likely to be jailed than white counterparts for similar offenses, and more likely to be given longer sentences than white counterparts at that. It also says juries are not the problem, as conviction rates are similar for all ethnic groups. So that only leaves one explanation - judges showing racial bias in sentencing. As glaringly obvious as that should be, the report can't bring itself to say that however, because that would be an admission of institutional racism, and let's remember that key figures writing this report start from and maintain a position that institutional racism doesn't exist. It doesn't try to explain why the sentencing disparities exist, launching instead into a long section on stop and search, to no doubt make sure any reader has forgotten about the sentencing by the time they get to the end of that long section. THAT is what is wrong with this report.

I have read the report and so have people like David Olugosa. The silence around the omitted testimonies and evidence is rather telling don't you think? At the end of the day, it is a government commissioned report. Those chosen to compile it were chosen for a reason. The cynicism that invites is predictable.

Ahhh, Darling of the Tory Party Calvin Robinson, who ignores his own anecdotal experience to stand by a report he of all people knows is flawed, for fear of damaging the Tory Party political career he is aspiring to. Let's start by asking Calvin why testimonies taken by the committee as examples of institutional racism, were not included in the final report shall we? People who don't believe institutional racism exists concoct a report that concludes that institutional racism doesn't exist by omitting testimonies that suggest it does exist, shocker. I will take a respected historian like David Olusoga on this report over a Tory Party mouthpiece any day of the week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/02/historian-and-hundreds-of-academics-attack-no-10s-race-report

Insurance is expensive for new young drivers and has been for some time, but it's not just young people who get stung in this way but experienced drivers who get rid of their car and then decide to own a car again,. After 3 years of having no car insurance, all prior no claims statuses are lost, and you have to start again as we found out. 18 years clean driving experience counted for nothing and the average quote was also coming in at ?1000. In addition to suggestions above, he could look at mileage restricted policies. A few insurance companies offer those kinds of policies. In the end we opted for a car sharing arrangement and use this company, who are just useful to know about anyway because of all the flexible insurance arrangements they offer. Especially good for those who don't use a car every day, but need one more than hiring a car occasionally. https://www.cuvva.com/

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclists, unless they are mountain bikers, do need > reasonably well kept roads so it is not impossible > that in time cyclists may also get taxed for road > upkeep. Never going to happen and impossible to enforce.

The school could however do something to make the perimeter fence into more of a sound barrier though. At present there really isn't anything to reduce the noise. Trellis covered with artificial grass on a solid fence would make a difference.

Kier is in a difficult place, trying to figure out how to win the next election following a defeat that makes little sense to core Labour values. It is also hard to be an opposition when most of the parliamentary business is centered around a pandemic response. We will start to see Labour bite when efforts to repay the debt come into play but on other issues, like crime and policing, and the coming immigration bill, there is going to be a dilemma, and especially with the latter, in that having been a major issue in the Brexit debate. Even Brexit will continue to be a problem. There are many people now who regret voting leave, as they find themselves impacted by the changes in trading status, impacts they were told would not happen (sunlit uplands and all that). So where does Labour go on that? Do they as a party mirror the tories for fear of not being able to regain those red wall seats? Or do they go all out to scoop up regretful leavers? Will that even be enough to swing things their way next time? The SNP have Scotland pretty much sewn up and Labour has never won an election without those Scottish seats. Blair was the viable alternative to Thatcher for many reasons. Kier I think, understands that the British electorate doesn't swing left then right then left. It always comes back to the center ground when it finally rejects steps out to the right or left. Before Kier can even begin to model that kind of manifesto though, he has to navigate a factional membership. Regaining control of the NEC, is by far the most important area of power, but controlling CLP pushed motions at conference etc is another battle altogether.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Big pharma is not a charity. > > Pandemics present an opportunity for income > beyond > > their wildest dreams. Boris was just being > honest > > about it. > > AZ is far more akin to a 'Socialist' vaccine than a 'Capitalist' one. > > Non-profit making and was given large amounts of Gov money/investment. > > Gordon Gecko's braces would be twanging off in disgust... I agree with this of course. Big pharma finds itself in a unique position with a pandemic, and governments have to stump up the funding if they want fast results. Not sure if there is any way of avoiding that.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Big pharma is not a charity. > > Pandemics present an opportunity for income > beyond > > their wildest dreams. Boris was just being > honest > > about it. > > AZ is far more akin to a 'Socialist' vaccine than a 'Capitalist' one. > > Non-profit making and was given large amounts of Gov money/investment. > > Gordon Gecko's braces would be twanging off in disgust... I agree with this of course. Big pharma finds itself in a unique position with a pandemic, and governments have to stump up the funding if they want fast results. Not sure if there is any way of avoiding that.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Er, I think you?ll find Brexit was as bigger shock > to the EU as all of these! A bizarre omission I disagree. The other three things are externally imposed crisis and have high levels of unpredictability within them, because of numerous factors beyond EU control. Brexit on the other hand is an internal change between 1 nation and the EU. The EU won't be brought down by that. The difference should be clear.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Er, I think you?ll find Brexit was as bigger shock > to the EU as all of these! A bizarre omission I disagree. The other three things are externally imposed crisis and have high levels of unpredictability within them, because of numerous factors beyond EU control. Brexit on the other hand is an internal change between 1 nation and the EU. The EU won't be brought down by that. The difference should be clear.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm no lawyer....but if true, further ammunition that this whole 'war' is just the EU punishing AstraZeneca and the UK as cover for its poor contracting.... > > https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-difference s-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ I think the dynamics here are bizarre to say the least. The EU need to make the orders they need to make, and AZ needs to honour them. And if AZ can not meet demand, then order from suppliers of other vaccines.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People do love to make storms in teacups don't they. I mean FFS....he's saying capitalism helped accelerate the response to Covid...Which would be relatively dull comment on its own. > > The greed reference is clearly a clumsy call back to Michael Douglas in Wall Street....awkward? Yes. Worth getting your knickers in a twist over? Not so much > > Nothing to see here...move along..... I agree with you here. Boris is a liberal free marketeer. So he believes that free market competition drives progress (whilst not thinking it is the be all that his libertarian friends do). The 'greed is good' mantra is exactly what I think he was referencing. Now greed isn't always good as we all know, but there are occasions where it serves a purpose. His point was that capitalism is the reason why there was a race to develop vaccines, and that race is precisely why we have at least five now in play. There will be others that emerge too. Big pharma is not a charity. Pandemics present an opportunity for income beyond their wildest dreams. Boris was just being honest about it.

The EU has to change, there is no question about that, and a lot of people who voted for remain did so because they put trade first and believed that change around the rest can come from within. The EU essentially has had three huge shocks to its foundations over last fifteen years. First was the 2008 financial crash, and having to bail out EU economies. The second was the Syrian war and the ensuing refugee crisis, and now a global pandemic. All three of those things challenged the given consensus. Why? Because consensus on trade is easy. Consensus on anything outside of that tests the boundaries of self interest. Those are the boundaries Farage was able to exploit to great effect of course. I would wager that the EU are worried about falling behind in economic recovery if competitors are up and running again before them. That is the 'competition' that is driving the EU vaccine threats. The race for vaccines is a reactive one and with that comes inevitable supply and demand issues. It will also take time to get to the required capacity. Does it really matter if the EU is three months behind the UK on vaccine rollout? In principle no. But if that difference in three months is the difference between a third wave and no third wave, then the impacts are perhaps a bit more considerable. My personal opinion is that the EU should focus less on where the UK are, and figure out where they can place orders that can be met for their own needs.

The problem with the protest aspects of the bill is that it opens the door to a subjective interpretation of the law. Police already had the powers to shut down protest, with the use of section and dispersal orders. They were just always slow to use them. And if the government thinks this Bill will stop the kinds of protest they don't like, they are dreaming. BLM and XR are led by hardened and very organised activists, who don't care one bit about the law on protest and disruption. And when government starts the process of clawing back money ot pay of the debt, the unions will be back to organising the protests that attract tens of thousands. Try telling people in those kinds of numbers where they can march and protest. Police don't have the numbers to stop those. So who will these new rules be effective against exactly? The lone protesters that makes themselves a regular feature outside Parliament, that's who. Smaller protest groups that have to break the rules in order to get noticed. This is a dog whistle move from government. The nonsense around statues and memorials is a prime example. Vandalism is already covered under criminal damage legislation. Four people would not be currently being prosecuted for the Bristol Statue toppling if that were not the case. Patel makes the mistake of thinking long sentences deter people who act in the heat of the moment. She couldn't be more wrong. As for the death penalty, Ian Hislop roasted Patel on that one when she made the same stupid argument around deterrence. This is how she thinks sadly.

There are no words for that level of conspiracy nonsense lol

The thing to say about certain mental health conditions is that only a trained professional can fully assess if someone poses a risk or not. This is very hard for a member of the public to assess, let alone someone being subjected to abuse and potentially already feeling afraid or intimidated. So personal safety must always come first, followed by reporting to the Police. There is also a free app called 'Hollie Guard' which can be used as a personal alarm, that also starts your phone video and audio recording automatically. It can also be used to track your journey etc. Primarily aimed at women but I can't see why anyone wouldn't find this useful as a security device.

This reminds me of the Caterpillar in Alice and Wonderland lol - 'One side will make you taller, the other side smaller' said the caterpillar. 'One side of what, the other side of what?' said Alice. 'Of the mushroooooom', and the caterpillar slithers away. :D

They have arrested a serving Met Police Officer (who lives in Kent) and a women for allegedly assisting him after the fact. All very odd, but Police must have evidence they are not sharing with the public yet. They forensically fingertip searched an area next to some flats too. Feels as though they are getting closer to a theory of what has happened even if Sarah herself has not yet been found. Just awful for her parents, family and friends though.