buctootim

Really. What about before that? - before the entire universe was smaller than pinhead. What existed then? The ancient age had parables told by believers, we have theories told by believers.

It's not even as if the scientific explanation is any less fantastic and unlikely. So we're on one of a trillion rocks hurtling through a black vacuum of space lit only by vast fireballs, and oh by the way we evolved from a fish.

Worse than pesticide?

From that story - "The president has also shared a baseless theory that former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were connected to last year's prison suicide of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein". Even if they were its hardly worse than being a known friend of his.

You said the British people, not Parliament. There was always a majority amongst the people for some kind of middle of the road deal. It was only a dysfunctional Parliament where the extremes held sway and the moderates were in a minority.

No rational well person would write that. I’m coming round to Hockey’s view that you are a troll. That or early stage dementia

Yeah they would. The 52% vote for leave was never homogenous, split three main ways. Maybe a third of leave and the large majority of the 48% remain would have accepted BRINO.

That's a big claim, not backed up by the years of evidence.

Glad you brought it up. The British fishing industry used to focus on cod and haddock off Iceland and Norway and largely ignored fishing in the North sea near Britain - that was left to the continentals who liked stuff like herring, gurnard and wrasse. So it didnt matter to the Tory Heath government when we joined the EEC if national quotas for the North sea and channel were based on previous years fishing effort because we didnt want to fish there anyway. Then oil was discovered in the North Sea and the Tory government thought it would be a jolly whizzo idea to instead of having a 12 mile territorial waters limit to declare a 200 mile limit instead, so we could grab a big slice of the oil and gas. But guess what! Johnny foreigner did the same and also declared 200 mile EEZs. Which meant Iceland and Norway kicked us out of fishing in their waters for cod and haddock - with 250,000 population Iceland defeating 'the finest navy in world' (copyright by jingo). So the British fishing fleet thought hm, we can fish for stuff no-one wants or sell our quota to johnny foreigner and not have to go to the troublesome business of actually fishing. Huzzah! Then we spent 30 years blaming the EU for the decline of the British fishing industry.

How do you deal with fish than spawn in one territory, have nursery grounds in another and feed as adults in three others depending on the season. If they leave British waters to spawn should we catch them before they leave and have a chance to reproduce? Should the country that only has the juvenile immature fish catch them as they dont have any adults?

Classic Tragedy of the Commons. What fishing needs is a farming approach to fisheries - growing for the long term, not a hunting approach - take it now before someone else does.

Also fish swim (who knew). Many species spend different parts of the year in the waters of different countries. Unless you negotiate on quotas with neighbours (lets call it for arguments sake something like a Common Fisheries Policy) then you can find all your migratory species suddenly disappear because neighbouring countries have caught them all whilst in their waters. Why? because they know the Brits aren't going to take part in any common stock management.

Hm. Avoiding the question because you cant answer for the inconsistency in Government policy or because you haven't noticed it? If it is really the Johnson governments policy to 'take back control' after December 2020 why aren't they setting out the compensation scheme for foreign owners who have legitimately bought quota. Instead of bemoaning that the EU arent listening to their redlines on fisheries, why don't they set out the plan so the EU and everybody else can see what the redlines actually mean and negotiate accordingly? surely that wouldn't be contentious? (arf)

How much do you think the British Government should pay to buy back the UK fishing quota sold to foreign boats Wes? Once any compensation has been agreed what aspect of the current England and Wales rules would stop foreign owners simply buying it again on the open market? Why do you think the Government hasn't changed the rules on ownership and landings in England in the four years since the Brexit vote? Surely they aren't holding back because they want to include fishing in wider negotiations? Fisheries management is a devolved responsibility. Why is do you think Scotland and NI have retained local control of fisheries and quotas and yet England and Wales have sold them off and blame the EU for the consequence of their own policies?

Meh. You need to rely on facts and stats when analysing success or failure, not lap up journo agendas. Fact 1 Starmer was questioning Johnson on care home deaths. Fact 2 Wales has a far lower rate of care home deaths due to Covid-19 than England.

"I never not said them fings. I just never did. Totally different. Totes. Honest"

Yes. But it cant be 'normal' customs procedures, that doesn't work with just in time. It would have to be some kind of highly expedited system - and that means alignment of standards and tariff exemptions for everything apart from finished products ready for market.

Do you not realise it just shows you as a massive bellend Wes? Genuinely. I'm not even trying to insult you, its just how you come across to others. What is so painful about acknowledging that Starmer is a big upgrade on Corbyn and that it is important for any country's democracy to have effective opposition? It would mark you out as something more than blindly tribal and narrow.

Good news indeed, but not for the reasons you think. The Barcelona plant will rely on a network of suppliers throughout Spain, France and elsewhere. Successfully transferring that production will rely on continuing that free movement....

Depends what you count and how you count. Roughly twice as many people died last month as you would ordinarily expect. Some died from COVID-19, some died from fear of COVID-19d (not accessing healthcare when ill for fear of getting infected or being a burden on the NHS) and some died as a consequence of the Governments reaction to COVID-19 - including cancellation of routine clinics, screening, new cancer treatments and elective operations, suicides, and a myriad other factors.

The figure in your linked paper review is 0.75% and it states this number is highly uncertain. I've quoted around 0.5% based on other studies. The difference between the two is relatively small. Even taking your figure as correct a 0.75% infection fatality rate would still give a figure of 4.265 million people in the UK having been infected.

Meh. I havent seen todays broadcast but Chris Whitty gave the over 900,000 in London figures on 23rd April and he made clear it was just an estimate because randomised antibody testing hadnt yet started. If he repeated them tonight then it is old best guess stuff from three week old data. Public Health England will report first findings from test, track trace plan later this month. The ONS have another sampling exercise. . Until those numbers come through all you can do is extrapolate from comparable experiences elsewhere, New York being the closest match to London - where the death rate was around 0.79%. Stamford University calculate the global death rate at 0.2% whilst the University of Berkeley put the Italian death rate at 0.5% (in a much older population). If over 900,000 Londoners had been infected three weeks ago and yet only 5,596 people had died in hospital in London as of yesterday whilst infected with Covid-19 you dont need to be especially acute with stats to work out the hospital death rate will be only just over 0.5% after new infections are counted. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurvey/england10may2020 https://www.london.gov.uk/coronavirus/coronavirus-numbers-london https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/883784/COVID19_Epidemiological_Summary_w19_FINAL.pdf

Erm lets just say you're confused. You work out the mortality rate by testing a known population population to work out prevalence and following each case to recovery or death. What you dont ever do is try and extrapolate a death rate when primarily you are only testing people who present at hospital with severe symptoms. The average mortality rate globally seems to be c0.5%.