Weston Super Saint

That's the generally accepted measurement, yes. You don't need a degree to score well in an IQ test though - a guy who used to work for me in Blackpool used to score very highly, enough to qualify for Mensa, he only passed four GCSEs.

I wouldn't call anyone 'thick' either but paying over £30k to get a degree in 'Disney' studies and work in a dead end job in retail or hospitality doesn't exactly warrant a place in the intelligentsia!

No. Cycling, certainly is about power to weight ratios, the physiology that makes a world class sprinter is completely wrong for a cyclist - maybe some similarities with some of the very short distance track sprinters, but even those guys weigh comparatively little. Some of the long distance runners from Kenya, Eritrea, Ethiopia etc would probably make very good cyclists as they are basically skeletons with enormous lungs, however, they don't have the opportunity to ride like the Europeans and South Americans, so don't develop the skills needed to reach the top. It's a lot easier to get hold of some trainers and go running than it is to get hold of a decent road bike and go riding on decent road surfaces.

Physiology. The same way that the top sprinters are generally black.

Might as well add Polo in to the mix, maybe rowing and dressage too....

'Protect' them from what?

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll write himself a number of Presidential pardons before he leaves office, all he'll need to do is fill in the blanks... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53371756

Really, THAT is the quivalent of hypocrisy?

Something fishy about that....

Not at all, they put out a statement so had a get out of jail free card, simples.

Didn't you work for the Guardian and the CPS?

Any chance that people's 'location' can be switched back on?

To be fair, Lizzie is 94 so statistically she is far more likely to pop her clogs than the Norwegian bird.

No, because they had a meeting of the F1 Drivers Association where they agreed that individuals were to be given an individual choice. I don't think Hamilton has openly stated they are racist so I think they may have gotten away with it.

Wigan - the Portsmouth of the North. Is that as blatant a case of money laundering that is ever likely to be witnessed? One Hong Kong business owner (who owns a no-mark football club in the North) is owed money by another Hong Kong 'business' man who buys the club for £40m thus settling the debt and washing £40m worth of money in an instant. A month later the new owner puts the club into administration because his debt is paid and he really doesn't want the hassle of running a football club or paying out more money! Fishier than Pompey docks if you ask me!

Certainly seems like the most logical thing to do. Put out a statement for the small minority of stupid people which will cost time and money, rather than continue using their existing slogan and campaign which has no ambiguity and is understood by everyone who's ever seen it. Kick It Out, simples. But, definitely not bandwagon hopping or virtue signalling in any way shape or form.

It's fantastic news that the ECB has clariifed it does not support the political organisation or illegal activity (like protest marching whilst Coronavirus laws are in place). Not so good that there would now appear to be a third 'Black Lives Matter' movement / organisation - the original, Marxist one that the ECB does not support, the one that the Premier League created and that the ECB have borrowed the logo from and now their own version. You can see how the message might be confusing for some.

Does anyone know which 'Black Lives Matter' the England Cricket Board are supporting? Presumably it's not the one that the PL has invented so must be the Marxist one that wants to defund the police?

https://twitter.com/rodbishop15/status/1280142416222306304

If we didn't want the virus to spread, nobody would have mentioned 'herd immunity'. If we wanted to isolate the virus we would have shut down every airport and seaport at the end of January. Numerous press conferences during the early days mentioned that the virus was already 'here' and that there was nothing we could do to eradicate that so we needed to allow it to spread in a controlled manner. It's not a conclusion I came to it is information that was given during the early days of the virus. The Government then introduced its 'five tests' for determining when lockdown could be lifted. Japan has a massively different culture to the UK, who knew that well behaved people could protect each other, whilst morons can't. I went to Glasgow once, stayed in the hotel that the bin truck ran into - even had a drink or two at the table in the corner of the 'conservatory' that it smashed up. Visited Ibrox, Celtic Park and Firhill Stadium the following day before the flight home. Other than that you are barking up the wrong tree. Woof.

Because we've had more infections - I thought that was clear from my previous post. Yes, lots of countries locked down sooner than us and had less infections. Those countries are now re-opening and moving on with life and guess what, they are experiencing a rise in infections once more, which will inevitably lead to more deaths. Don't worry, most countries will catch up soon enough, especially those with a large BAME population for whom, sadly, this virus seems to be far more leathal.

Undoubtedly. Locking down earlier and harder would have saved many more lives. I've never argued it wouldn't. The Government had a balancing act to carry out, allow the virus to spread whilst keeping the NHS under control versus locking down the economy and causing an economic meltdown. However, that only works whilst you remain locked down. Once you re-open the economy and get life moving again, the virus re-appears as there is no known cure or vaccine at this point in time. Look at Melbourne for a prime example of this, locked down nice and early and contained the virus, very good. Re-opened, having another 'spike' so locking down for a further six weeks. What is the economic cost of that? Your statement about behavioural science, I don't believe the PM was wrong - remember the protest marches, packed beaches, packed parks? All those happened because people couldn't manage to sit on their arses and be paid for it! Do you think that locking down harder and for longer would have seen more or less of these incidents? Members of the Government and its own advisors couldn't follow the advice on numerous occassions but you expect the 'average' man on the street to be different? With regards to herd immunity, not sure why you think that is wrong. It was stated from the very beginning that herd immunity needed around 60-70% of the population to have been infected and produce antibodies before it came in to play. We haven't reached a point where that many people have been infected so herd immunity hasn't happened yet. That doesn't make it 'clearly wrong' it just means we will take more time to reach the point where enough people have had the virus (ironically, if we hadn't locked down at all we would reach that point a lot sooner) - it could of course become irrelevant if a vaccine is developed and in place before that happens, but the theory behind the two is exactly the same and not 'clearly wrong'.

Track and trace has already proved to be completely unreliable due to the complete morons that live in this country and would rather give false details than ensure public health is protected - what is the current figure, is it something like 25% of all positive tests cannot be contacted because they gave incorrect information, how many more people can therefore not be contacted as a result? Then you have the same thing in the pubs this weekend when they opened. For the minority of pubs that do insist on contact details being given, most of the information they are collecting is complete nonsense with people giving made up names and numbers. How could the Government have prepared to get the virus under control when it has no known medication that will control it? The only thing that can be done is to treat the symptoms when they become severe enough to need treating. Not sure how else you can control the spread other than lock everyone up - which we did! Finally, if you honestly believe that China prevented unnecessary deaths, you need to give your head a wobble pal!

Not sure what your 'end goal' is supposed to look like when you state it wasn't taken seriously enough at the start. I'm guessing you feel that we could have locked the country down and completely eradicated the virus?

Which is what I stated in my first reply on this topic. I'm not convinced that anyone Governing the UK at the time this started would have done anything drastically different. If we had taken the same gambe as Brazil and Sweden and had no lockdown who knows how many people would have died - I'm not convinced it would have been drastically bigger than what we have seen to date and what we are likely to see once the virus is finally under control with a vaccine. I get what you are saying about locking down the economy will cause people to die - however, that is based on poverty, so whilst it was unavoidable that it would happen (imagine the uproar if lockdown didn't go ahead!!!), the 'poverty' element has been largely mitigated by the furlough scheme with people maintaining broadly similar incomes, I'm sure there will be many, many individual examples of hardship but I'm viewing this on a macro rather than micro level. We will have to wait and see what the impending recession will bring to the table though... Again, I get your point about shutting down the NHS and early diagnosis, but as linked to above, NHS England specifically stated treatment should carry on and that cancer care should not be deferred - whilst I have only looked for articles regarding cancer care, my assumption is that the advice would have been the same for a whole cornucopia of illnesses! Again, chucking old people out (bed blockers) to free up space in the NHS, will largely come down to localised clinical assessments - I haven't seen a Government policy that stated this should happen - and should have only affected the 'least ill' patients. Admittedly the 'science' behind this decision on the face of it seems flawed, however, the risk of sending people home / away from hospitals that were predicted to become overwhelmed by Covid patients certainly seems a lot lower than keeping them in situ where they were highly likely to be exposed to the virus.