registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Oct 15, 2020 12:04:55 GMT
Trump/Johnson (they only differ in style) - never our fault (we don't make mistakes), blame someone else. At least the immigrants aren't copping it for a change. But isn't this the exact same attitude expressed by people like Andy Burnham? When you hear him speak you would think the last people to blame for the rise in Manchester was the good people of Manchester. Well, to be fair he's also an ex Minister of State for Health, so he does have some relevant knowledge and experience. In addition to which the UK is one of the most centralised states in the developed world, and would benefit from some decentralisation (not least with regard to healthcare - see Germany by way of comparison). And he's now Mayor of Greater Manchester. I think he has a pretty good claim to have a seat at the table.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Oct 15, 2020 12:22:28 GMT
Apparently there is a legal challenge being held (right now) where Cripps Barn Group Ltd (wedding events guys) are trying to get an injunction against the current Govt. restrictions on the original 10pm curfew (amended to be regarding the latest legislation).. Unlikely to be successful but rumour has it they may be in with a chance. It seems like the issues are whether there was sufficient 1. urgency and 2. evidence to use the emergency procedures - neither of which have really been brought up before so it will be interesting to see if the government is at least forced to explain even if it makes little difference to the outcome Edit: courtnewsuk.co.uk/tycoon-battles-wedding-restrictions/
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 1,252
|
Post by james100 on Oct 15, 2020 12:51:56 GMT
Not as expensive as it might have been. Payments to be made going forward but no backdating of the 20 odd years dodged so far. It's remarkable how little people seem to care about the cronyism/corruption/breaking of rules going on. It's almost like the "culture war" and Brexit divisions were deliberately sewn in order to allow lot of things to go under the radar in the name of supporting your side. Politics seem (deliberately) broken. Oh god yes to all this. Never has "divided we fall" rung so true. Artfully engineered to whip up enough hatred, fear, anger and chaos to let the government get away with metaphorical murder. Let's all look the other way and have a scrap instead. No wonder the government treats "the people" like fools. I keep remembering this clip with Kristin Scott Thomas: youtu.be/xvaG98Y6qbc
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 15, 2020 13:02:30 GMT
It's remarkable how little people seem to care about the cronyism/corruption/breaking of rules going on. It's almost like the "culture war" and Brexit divisions were deliberately sewn in order to allow lot of things to go under the radar in the name of supporting your side. Politics seem (deliberately) broken. Oh god yes to all this. Never has "divided we fall" rung so true. Artfully engineered to whip up enough hatred, fear, anger and chaos to let the government get away with metaphorical murder. Let's all look the other way and have a scrap instead. No wonder the government treats "the people" like fools. I keep remembering this clip with Kristin Scott Thomas: youtu.be/xvaG98Y6qbcHadn't seen that. And that was only a year after the referendum.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Oct 15, 2020 13:24:39 GMT
Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now (The Lancet) Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.
... Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand, to name a few countries, have shown that robust public health responses can control transmission, allowing life to return to near-normal, and there are many such success stories. The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,390
Likes: 1,693
|
Post by benaj on Oct 15, 2020 13:46:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 15, 2020 13:56:05 GMT
Not as expensive as it might have been. Payments to be made going forward but no backdating of the 20 odd years dodged so far. It's remarkable how little people seem to care about the cronyism/corruption/breaking of rules going on. It's almost like the "culture war" and Brexit divisions were deliberately sewn in order to allow lot of things to go under the radar in the name of supporting your side. Politics seem (deliberately) broken. Totalitarian democracy. Another warning sign from the Editor of The Lancet:
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Oct 15, 2020 14:15:56 GMT
Another warning sign from the Editor of The Lancet Blimey
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Oct 15, 2020 14:21:54 GMT
Another warning sign from the Editor of The Lancet Blimey Is it that surprising that _Government_ scientists are restricted in terms of what they can say publicly? A scientist ought to very carefully consider if they really want to be on the payroll of politics, given the implications (above) and that it may detrimentally impact how others view their research or remarks in the field.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 15, 2020 14:27:13 GMT
Is it that surprising that _Government_ scientists are restricted in terms of what they can say publicly? A scientist ought to very carefully consider if they really want to be on the payroll of politics, given the implications (above) and that it may detrimentally impact how others view their research or remarks in the field. That's not correct. They are civil servants... www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 15, 2020 14:28:18 GMT
Is it that surprising that _Government_ scientists are restricted in terms of what they can say publicly? A scientist ought to very carefully consider if they really want to be on the payroll of politics, given the implications (above) and that it may detrimentally impact how others view their research or remarks in the field. That's not correct. They are civil servants... www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-codeExactly what I was about to post. But the government is also politicising the civil service.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 15, 2020 14:28:48 GMT
Another warning sign from the Editor of The Lancet Blimey Cummings' fingers are everywhere
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 15, 2020 16:12:06 GMT
Civil servants (and I was one) are bound by the Civil Service Code and the Official Secrets Act. They have never been free to go running off the the press to spout off about X or Y. For a start, they may not comprehend the bigger picture, and secondly they owe their allegiance to their minister of the day, whichever complexion of government they represent. Their terms of employment demand they MUST remain apolitical and impartial. If they have a grievance, the proper channel to air it is up the chain of command, as far as their Permanent Secretary if necessary.
This is right and proper and the reason our Civil Service was once the envy of the world.
Politicians can be held to account at the ballot box, but it's imperative that civil servants remain impartial... and that includes highly charged articles to the media. If you can't accept that, leave the service.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,429
Likes: 2,895
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 15, 2020 16:23:28 GMT
Civil servants (and I was one) are bound by the Civil Service Code and the Official Secrets Act. They have never been free to go running off the the press to spout off about X or Y. For a start, they may not comprehend the bigger picture, and secondly they owe their allegiance to their minister of the day, whichever complexion of government they represent. Their terms of employment demand they MUST remain apolitical and impartial. If they have a grievance, the proper channel to air it is up the chain of command, as far as their Permanent Secretary if necessary. This is right and proper and the reason our Civil Service was once the envy of the world. Politicians can be held to account at the ballot box, but it's imperative that civil servants remain impartial... and that includes highly charged articles to the media. If you can't accept that, leave the service. I completely agree with that. Why then was the issue of the day 4 years considered by some (many?) to apparently be even more important than the system of government itself?
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 15, 2020 16:38:31 GMT
Civil servants (and I was one) are bound by the Civil Service Code and the Official Secrets Act. They have never been free to go running off the the press to spout off about X or Y. For a start, they may not comprehend the bigger picture, and secondly they owe their allegiance to their minister of the day, whichever complexion of government they represent. Their terms of employment demand they MUST remain apolitical and impartial. If they have a grievance, the proper channel to air it is up the chain of command, as far as their Permanent Secretary if necessary. This is right and proper and the reason our Civil Service was once the envy of the world. Politicians can be held to account at the ballot box, but it's imperative that civil servants remain impartial... and that includes highly charged articles to the media. If you can't accept that, leave the service. I completely agree with that. Why then was the issue of the day 4 years considered by some (many?) to apparently be even more important than the system of government itself? The referendum debate more important than our democracy? I'm not sure I follow. Certainly I didn't see it that way myself, anyway.
|
|