Jump to content

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

I'm glad that you approve of this sort of waste of taxpayer's money. I expect that in order to receive such a copious sum of money, he must have ticked several boxes.

I'm more concerned about the £12bn spent on the "world-beating" track and trace which has just had it's worst week. 

Boris was boasting that 100% of test results would be returned within 24 hours. Last week it was 15%. Despite local health authorities performing the best, the government continue to pour money into badly-performing private companies, many with links to the Tories. This Dido Harding woman who's supposed to be in charge seems to have vanished.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, aintforever said:

I never said I wanted to pay more tax, just happy to do what it takes to fight the virus and stop the economy collapsing. Not cry like a little baby because someone is being paid Furlough and it might effect my bank balance in the future.

I wouldn’t worry too much. There’s a huge reset coming and we’ll all forced to switch to digital currency due to the debt levels forced on all economies and how it’s gonna be restructured. 
 

The new Bretton Woods has happened and we’re all screwed. 
 

cash will be history pretty soon 

Edited by Raging Bull
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

I'm glad that you approve of this sort of waste of taxpayer's money. I expect that in order to receive such a copious sum of money, he must have ticked several boxes.

£12 billion spunked on a terrible track and trace, countless billions given to Serco and the likes to mess up prisons, probation, fitness to work benefits. More billions spaffed on crap PPE or given to companies run by the Government's mates, some of which barely seen to exist. Extortionate fees paid to companies like Deloitte for doing not very much. Massive overspend on the unnecessary HS2.

Someone getting a small amount of money from the Arts Council when all the above is going on seems somewhat inconsequential doesn't it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Cat said:

£12 billion spunked on a terrible track and trace, countless billions given to Serco and the likes to mess up prisons, probation, fitness to work benefits. More billions spaffed on crap PPE or given to companies run by the Government's mates, some of which barely seen to exist. Extortionate fees paid to companies like Deloitte for doing not very much. Massive overspend on the unnecessary HS2.

Someone getting a small amount of money from the Arts Council when all the above is going on seems somewhat inconsequential doesn't it?

But which story makes the front page of the Mail and Express ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/10/2020 at 18:24, whelk said:

 Not worth getting worked up about. If you are loaded. Better than Sam Smith crying cos he is bored in his mansion 

Fair play to her. If I had the cash to take all my family to a private island I'd be plastering it all over twitter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hypochondriac said:

Fair play to her. If I had the cash to take all my family to a private island I'd be plastering it all over twitter. 

Plus assuring the 'poor' people that by doing so it helps you to understand the hardships they are going throgh during the pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Plus assuring the 'poor' people that by doing so it helps you to understand the hardships they are going throgh during the pandemic.

I can proudly say I've never looked at anything she's put on twitter. She probably deserves a bit of hate if she's put it like that but I think most people have more important things to worry about than what she's spewed out on twitter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest from Kim Kardashian is somehow her long dead father turned up via hologram (a little like Superman and Marlon Brando) to have a chat and give a birthday message. While also praising his most genius Son-in-law (who evidently paid for it) Kanye West. 
 

Tone deaf, I don’t think quite covers it 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think KK is just an avatar for everything we hate about celebrity culture. It’s hard to understand just how warped her perspective of the world is but this is a woman who can get paid tens of millions for one Instagram post endorsing some cosmetic product. One of her sisters (Kendal, Kylie I forget and don’t care which) is apparently a 23 year old billionaire, simply because she lends her face to various beauty products on Instagram... billionaire... it’s hard to imagine but looking at her Instagram, she is followed by the equivalent population of Russia and Spain combined. If her followers were a country, it’d be the 8th largest in the world. Not to defend her behaviour but it’s no more eccentric than Trump or any other Sheikh, Oligarch or cartel head. It’s just more publicised.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I think KK is just an avatar for everything we hate about celebrity culture. It’s hard to understand just how warped her perspective of the world is but this is a woman who can get paid tens of millions for one Instagram post endorsing some cosmetic product. One of her sisters (Kendal, Kylie I forget and don’t care which) is apparently a 23 year old billionaire, simply because she lends her face to various beauty products on Instagram... billionaire... it’s hard to imagine but looking at her Instagram, she is followed by the equivalent population of Russia and Spain combined. If her followers were a country, it’d be the 8th largest in the world. Not to defend her behaviour but it’s no more eccentric than Trump or any other Sheikh, Oligarch or cartel head. It’s just more publicised.

 

These people only profit because a considerable proportion of the population are a bit dim.

If a "celebrity" endorses a product, it must be because they really believe that it's good, not because they're getting paid loads of money, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem with a woman being attractive and rich, but I will be honest and say that I would prefer my own 8 year old daughter to find a role model who has gained fame and success through more academic, political or sporting means. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Looks like some posters have a problem with chicks being rich & fit. Good luck to her, she deserves every penny she earns and can spend it how she wants. 

Not at all, ( mind you, I don't find her 'fit', and I suspect that if she got too close to a fire parts of her would melt ). It's the Cult Of Celebrity that I find disturbing; that somebody as vacuous as KK can have such influence, and as for Kanye self identifying as " The Greatest Living Rock Star", BULLSHIT !!!!

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Doctoroncall said:

Very interesting. Would have been good to know the how many of those exposed to a sub infective dose of the virus develop a degree of immunity. That's the way I'm living my life - no high risk, long duration interractions but equally not wearing gloves or using sanitiser on the basis that repeated low dose exposure has an innoculation effect.     

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The rate of infection in England is far greater than the Government's 'worst case' planning, a model used to inform NHS preparations;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54750775

( Back in August, when the scenario was produced, some people did say that the modelling was flawed, and the data out of date ).

Not sure those figures make much sense.  A quote from that article :

Quote

The current estimate of the R number in the UK - the number of people each infected person passes the virus on to on average - is between 1.1 and 1.3.

This is lower than last week's estimate of 1.2 to 1.4, and lower than the estimate of 1.3-1.5 two weeks ago. It suggests that restrictions and changes in people's behaviour is having an impact.

What 'R' rate did they base the worst case scenario on where :

Quote

Scientists crunching the numbers estimated that, by mid-October, there were between 43,000 and 74,000 people being infected with coronavirus every day in England.

Their report said: "This is significantly above the profile of the reasonable worst-case scenario, where the number of daily infections in England remained between 12,000-13,000 throughout October."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LGTL said:

National lockdown on the way from next week then, according to all the morning papers.

Yay. 

Lockdown for a month, people mingle for Christmas, numbers shoot up in the New Year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, aintforever said:

It’s looking more and more like Starmer was right about the circuit break. At this rate we’re going to end up in a national lockdown anyway.

Starmer was just echoing the advice form Sage. A short circuit break was recommended weeks ago, but as the government ignored scientific advice, we get a month lockdown instead. Complete farce. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, egg said:

Starmer was just echoing the advice form Sage. A short circuit break was recommended weeks ago, but as the government ignored scientific advice, we get a month lockdown instead. Complete farce. 

What a load of old pony. “Certain” scientific advice recommended that, mainly from the same people who have constantly been wrong and who keep changing their advice anyway (care homes, masks). What happens after this “short circuit break”, would the virus have gone, never to return?
 

 What is a farce is the complete and utter lack of any leadership or anyone making decisions or telling the British people straight. Cheered on by middle class work from home wankers, who won’t suffer too much hardship, it’s government by focus groups & opinion polls. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What a load of old pony. “Certain” scientific advice recommended that, mainly from the same people who have constantly been wrong and who keep changing their advice anyway (care homes, masks). What happens after this “short circuit break”, would the virus have gone, never to return?
 

 What is a farce is the complete and utter lack of any leadership or anyone making decisions or telling the British people straight. Cheered on by middle class work from home wankers, who won’t suffer too much hardship, it’s government by focus groups & opinion polls. 

Neither of us are qualified to call "pony" on this. You're as clueless as the rest of us on what's best.

The simple fact is that we look destined for a month lockdown. I'm not saying its right or wrong, I don't pretend to know what's best. All I know is that it's twice as long as the fortnight that we might have got away with, thus twice as damaging. 

I agree with you re the rudderless leadership, but I'm confused about where you say that the government guidance should come from if you're critical of the scientists.

Are you suggesting that the sage advice should be ignored? If so, what should the government base its decisions on?

Edited by egg
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, egg said:

Neither of us are qualified to call "pony" on this. You're as clueless as the rest of us on what's best.

The simple fact is that we look destined for a month lockdown. I'm not saying its right or wrong, I don't pretend to know what's best. All I know is that it's twice as long as the fortnight that we might have got away with, thus twice as damaging. 

I agree with you re the rudderless leadership, but I'm confused about where you say that the government guidance should come from if you're critical of the scientists.

Are you suggesting that the sage advice should be ignored? If so, what should the government base its decisions on?

Haha. I don't always agree with your conclusions - but you do always take a reasoned view and cut through BS.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, egg said:

Starmer was just echoing the advice form Sage. A short circuit break was recommended weeks ago, but as the government ignored scientific advice, we get a month lockdown instead. Complete farce. 

What do the statistics say for the Welsh 'circuit break', is it working?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

What do the statistics say for the Welsh 'circuit break', is it working?

No idea mate. I'm not expressing an opinion on that, or advocating any lockdown. Scientists that know more than you, me and any politician were the ones advocating it. 

We're having a month lockdown. I'd prefer none at all, but a fortnight would have been better. It's not a hard concept. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

What do the statistics say for the Welsh 'circuit break', is it working?

There’s always a time lag so I expect we won’t know for at least a week or so.

one thing is for sure, if what we are currently doing isn’t getting the R rate below one, infections, hospitalisations and deaths will only carry on going up and the longer they go up the longer it takes to get it back down and the worse the effect on the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, egg said:

No idea mate. I'm not expressing an opinion on that, or advocating any lockdown. Scientists that know more than you, me and any politician were the ones advocating it. 

We're having a month lockdown. I'd prefer none at all, but a fortnight would have been better. It's not a hard concept. 

To be fair, my point was that a 'circuit break' is currently in progress in Wales.  Surely the statistcis from that can inform further decisions about lockdowns, rather than relying on the scientists who are giving us their best guess.  If it works it would be the best option, if it doesn't then a full lockdown is inevitable anyway....

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, my point was that a 'circuit break' is currently in progress in Wales.  Surely the statistcis from that can inform further decisions about lockdowns, rather than relying on the scientists who are giving us their best guess.  If it works it would be the best option, if it doesn't then a full lockdown is inevitable anyway....

I'm not with you on the science against statistics point. Waiting on stats for how things have gone elsewhere means sitting around and reacting after the event. That's dangerous so all we have is the scientific advice. That advice was for a short lockdown weeks ago. Whether doing that would have meant a shorter lockdown than we're gonna get we'll never know, but I suspect that delaying the inevitable has doubled the pain.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not with you on the science against statistics point. Waiting on stats for how things have gone elsewhere means sitting around and reacting after the event. That's dangerous so all we have is the scientific advice. That advice was for a short lockdown weeks ago. Whether doing that would have meant a shorter lockdown than we're gonna get we'll never know, but I suspect that delaying the inevitable has doubled the pain.   

To coin a phrase, pony.

Parts of Wales have been in lockdown since mid September.  There's no need to wait around for the data as it's already there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To coin a phrase, pony.

Parts of Wales have been in lockdown since mid September.  There's no need to wait around for the data as it's already there.

The point sailing over your head again huh. Wales have had the local firebreaks in place for weeks which is exactly why they don't need the more draconian English national lockdown to be announced by Sir Boris the Brave 

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})