steve
Member
Posts: 12,722
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 7:48:58 GMT
Regarding the removal of the slave trader statue, I went to Bristol university way back in the 1970's Colston's statue wasn't the trigger point it has subsequently become and the city was filled with his families civic efforts.
Other dubious named structures included the main university building the "Wills memorial building" named after the first chairman of British American tobacco an organisation whose product has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
No one to my recollection then or now objected to having lectures there there wasn't a campaign to change the name,but and I think this is the difference no one tried to cover up the activities of the company.
Requests to fit an explanatory plack to the colston statue date back to the the 1970's but had routinely been ignored.If they hadn't I suspect the statue wouldn't have been toppled, it might have already have been moved by more conventional means.
With the black lives matter protests of a couple of years back the statue became a trigger what better symbol to remove than that of a statue to a man who arguably thought black lives mattered only as a revenue stream.
So on to the trial and verdict, decades of experience have led me to conclude that juries can reach whatever conclusion they like and where the motivations of defendants are broadly in line with their own this influences the verdict.
Our system doesn't allow examination of the jury decision making process, the jurors themselves are not allowed to discuss the process other than with their fellow jurors before at the time or after the case.The
That's our system so the result whatever it is If not reached corruptly is valid.
Won't stop triggering right wingers though.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 7, 2022 7:59:03 GMT
robert - "...why I am unlikely to ever vote Labour, no matter how bad the Tories get. Soft on crime, soft on punishment." Um....the Bristol Four were acquitted after the Conservatives have been in power for 12 years. Soft on crime, soft on punishment..... You make me smile sometimes. 
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 7, 2022 8:13:26 GMT
Britain Elects
@britainelects
Cavendish (Gedling) council by-election result:
LDEM: 35.5% (+15.8)
LAB: 30.8% (-24.8)
CON: 25.4% (+0.6)
IND: 5.7% (+5.7)
GRN: 2.6% (+2.6)
Votes cast: 985
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 7, 2022 8:17:35 GMT
Suggest everyone reads carefully the Secret Barrister take on the Colston Affai posted by hireton. I think turk and robert should consider that the two legilstaive acts upon which the defence large rested (section 1 of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, with both used to argue that reasonable force was justified to prevent the commisioning of a crime - the statue display) were both passed under Conservative administrations. It's also worth considering that the defence of the legitimacy of reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime is a tenat of common law, which Consertives usually seem so keen on. So what we have had here is a court applying long held legal principles, all supported by Conservative politicians, and yet there is outrage? Classic Conservatism at work, selecting the bit of the law you want to support and claiming the rest is being eroded by wokeness/whatever, even though these are your laws being applied. I do find this intellectual emptiness pathetic, to be honest. Why not stop pretending and just say that you want to be able to decide who is guilty and that you don't want a justice system? That would be nearer the truth, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jan 7, 2022 8:26:24 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,529
|
Post by Danny on Jan 7, 2022 8:32:22 GMT
Danny "Does no one understand how bad the Uk finances are currently with very bad prospects for the future? How little or even no health gain there has been from lockdown thus far?" I think the pandemic has bring a quicker end to many High Streets, but others have gained and despite the moaning, a lot of Restaurants and Pubs have had a bumper summer - if you didn't book you didn't eat! Winners and losers, but the economy isn't as unhealthy as that. Interest rates will have to go up soon though to prop up the pound and stave off inflation, but again there are winner (the frugal) and losers (the indebted) there. I had a couple of anecdotal pieces of news. One person in catering was asked to do extra shifts because they cannot get staff. in another catering situation all six staff left because they could get better conditions elsewhere. This suggests to me truck drivers, doctors, nurses and carers are not the only shortage occupations in the UK. We are plainly desperate for more labour in all traditionally low wage areas, and frankly just 'all areas' as Brexit bites.
This means inflation. I imagine the place with all staff just left will have to pay significantly more to replace them, and that cost has to feed though to what they charge their customers. There might be some readjustment as covid disappears- I guess the situation rigt now is because demand is picking up as people see covid is over, and so employers have confidence to be hiring people who just arent there.
I do not recognise that anyone in catering has had a bumper year. Maybe they might if they do Downing street parties. You may be right that demand is recovering and the underlying business model is sound because people will need to be fed again. But there is going to be some permanent adjustent in where the demand is located if working from home stays as a real shift. Prices will rise because of labour costs. We are about to embark on a post covid and post brexit recession. Just recall Rees Mogg arguing there shouldnt be a NI tax rise...but also arguing it should be funded from further cuts in government expenditure. We are back at 2010 when con presided over a near, was it triple dip, recession as they tried to slash spending on taking office. All the structural issues say Britain is in for low growth after failing to return to pre covid levels.
And thats before considering that while some will have benefitted in terms of savings, just as many will have suffered. Plus renewed inflation now will likely see a return to eroding savings values, and some here have argued eroding asset values is overdue and necessary, but will also hit everyone's wealth.
Con failed to balance government revenue after 13 years in office, and just presided over a massive further deterioration. The blame for that is squarely theirs. they claiimed they bought something worthwhile over the last two years. i think they threw away that money for no health gain. A select minority will iindeed have become very rich on the back of government covid spending.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 8:48:15 GMT
if the police had got off their fat backsides and actually done the job they are supposedly paid for, I.e. preventing criminal damage in this case, arresting the culprits and carting them away, then the protesters probably would have got violent. The Boys in Blue seem to be having a few qualms:- "““While I support our Criminal Justice System and everyone’s right to trial by a jury of their peers, I know many people will feel unhappy with the outcome given the fact that damage was undeniably committed. However, due process has now taken place.The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in British law and I will continue to support the role of the police in facilitating that right. I would, however, remind our communities never to take the law into their own hands; if they do, the police will respond robustly and proportionately and prosecute those involved, as they did in the Bristol riots in March 2021. “We do not want to live in a lawless society and I actively encourage residents to follow democratic routes to make changes in their villages, towns and cities.” Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner, Mark Shelford, ( Bristol Live) and "Ché Donald, national vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “It is not free rein for criminals. Destruction of property, whether it is a statue or a window, is not part of lawful protest. Police will operate business as usual.” He said that the jury’s decision had to be respected but “it will only embolden the stupid”. Times Even Bristol's Mayor is a bit twitchy :- "Marvin Rees, the first elected black mayor of a big European city, told The Times he was “quite surprised” by the jury’s decision. He said Bristol was not the place for people to “indulge your own fantasies of being a revolutionary”. Rees sounded his warning as police said protesters that “wanton destruction” and criminal damage will still be investigated despite the Colston verdict. The Labour mayor said his challenge was to “hold the city together” and “remember that despite what was said in the court there are many people dismayed by this and the way it happened”." Times "History" looms large in this verdict.:- The Judge was worried about it :- "The judge in the Colston statue case feared undue pressure was being placed on the jury by rhetoric from defence barristers urging them to ensure they were on the “right side of history”. He criticised Liam Walker, the barrister who represented the defendant Sage Willoughby, for his closing remarks when he told the jury that their verdict would “reverberate around the world” Times Mr. Willoughby was in no doubt about it :- " we rectified history." That one rang a few bells !:- "“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” Winston Smith 1984 George Orwell and of course ""Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past," repeated Winston obediently. "Who controls the present controls the past," said O'Brien, nodding his head with slow approval." 1984 |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,507
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 7, 2022 8:54:58 GMT
Perhaps we should scrap Jury trials and just let Priti Patel decide on guilt or innocence or maybe make it even easier and just let the Police decide?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,529
|
Post by Danny on Jan 7, 2022 8:59:08 GMT
Thankfully, it looks like the court shared these types of view and ruled accordingly. It seems likely 'the court' didnt agree at all, which is why people were brought before it to answer for their actions. 'The jury' however disagreed with the prosecuting authorities and those who had framed legislation, and found the defendants innocent despite essentially admitting the crime. When Clive Ponting was found not guilty of breeching the official secrets act by releasing information he believed it was in the public interest should be known, governmment reacted by changing the law to make such a recurrence of a 'perverse' not guilty verdict harder. There have been calls to do the same now.
A jury system is deliberately intended to provide a backstop of justice where the average citizen would think the formal system is simply wrong.
As to Colston, there are many many national heroes who would now be considered to have committed barbaric and currently unacceptable acts. The whole wierdness about covid and how this epidemic has been handled reflects a shift in national view where death has become unacceptable, even in the face of its inevitability. Leading to perverse behaviour which cannot reduce those deaths but seeks to be seen to be trying. Toppling Coulston's statue was stupid because he is a part of our history. On the other hand, simply leaving it in place was also plainly unacceptable and over stepped acceptable behaviour - otherwise there wouldnt have been a riot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 9:03:41 GMT
Perhaps we should scrap Jury trials and just let Priti Patel decide on guilt or innocence or maybe make it even easier and just let the Police decide? We are going to have more of them-not less :- "Yesterday Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, said the government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) bill, which is going through parliament, would crack down on protesters who attack monuments. It will increase the maximum sentence for the crime from three months to ten years but, significantly, the bill will also widen the number of cases that have to be heard at a crown court, which is tried by a jury. Had the defendants not requested it, the case would have been heard by magistrates because the damage caused to the statue was £3,750 — less than the £5,000 threshold to go to crown court. Under the PCSC bill, any case where the “emotional value” is deemed “significant” will go to a crown court. This means more cases will be tried by jury, and the verdict will be at the mercy of the jury in any case, regardless of judicial direction. A jury acquitting defendants of criminal damage despite evidence that they dislodged a statue, defacing it before tipping it into a harbour may seem illogical but this is a bulwark of the criminal justice system. English juries are entitled under common law to arrive at verdicts on the basis of conscience — ie, to believe that the crown should not have brought the prosecution. We cannot know what the jury thought, because unlike in the US, where jurors speak to the media after verdicts, they are legally prohibited from doing so." Times |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,138
|
Post by domjg on Jan 7, 2022 9:20:22 GMT
robert I'm sick of people (including some of my own wider family members) bandying the term 'woke' around as an insult with absolutely no attempt to define what it means or even less why the current Labour party is apparently so awash with it. Please give a definition of what you think it means or don't use it. I'm beginning to get the impression from some that their definition of it is simply anyone/anything that isn't a red faced Tory Brexiter. Is it that being anti 'woke' is just handy emotionless shorthand for being against racial awareness/equality, being homophobic etc.. etc..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 9:25:39 GMT
a red faced Tory Brexiter. That will have to be Blue faced on UKPR2-have a word with lululemonmustdobetter.........actually do you think, on reflection, that your remark is a bit faceist ?  |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,529
|
Post by Danny on Jan 7, 2022 9:33:31 GMT
@ Danny 13.25pm "" The point is, we have to transfer to relying on human post infection immunity. Using vaccines as a three-monthly antiviral injection does not make sense, and doctors are starting to object publicly to it. Most people in the Uk did not need any vaccinations, as per SA."" That was part of your reply to news I gave that a programme of 4th CV vaccinations had started in Scotland, three months after 3rd jabs. But I would like to know where you draw the line on those who DO need vaccinations? Do you include over-70s, over-75s, highly-shielded, NHS staff, care workers?? I would agree on the over-use of anti-biotics resulting in their overall effectiveness declining. Two years ago we had a policy of annual flu injections for the old and vulnerable. That makes sense to me, and thats how I see covid vaccinations going. Flu vaccinations are annual, as it changes and they get a new one as the winter peak season approaches. Assuming covid keeps changing, probably a similar timing would apply.
However, covid may turn out to be more akin to other circulating corona cold viruses where we do not bother with vaccinations. Probably these cold viruse kill vulnerable people too, but we never even bother testing for it. its just not cost effective to do so. Whether any future vaccination scheme would be cost effective will depend on how the death rate from covid settles down. On this metric, there was never any reason to vaccinate anyone in low risk groups.
Even with covid as now we would have been better off folowing the SA model where only 30% have been vaccinated. They have probably arrived at that point because they are a poor nation as much as from the science, because to them wasting money on not very effective vaccinations was stupid. Whereas the Uk government took the view even a tiny benefit from a mass vaccination program was worth the cost. Dont forget HIV is a much bigger problem is SA than covid. They probably have a better sense of pespective on this epidemic. Its true ther was some hope initially mass vaccination might eradicate covid, but we now now thats not going to happen, so it no longer justifies any such policy.
Its understandable that at the outset politicians made the wrong choices based on advice they were getting. However we do now know vaccination is only a real benefit to the high risk. All the evidence continues to say this is so, and despite claims those ill in hospital are disproportionately from the unvaccinated, in the community the unvaccinated are getting fewer not more infections of covid. All suggesting its still true that its specifically the high risk and not the general population who are and have always been the ones at risk and likely to benefit from a vaccination.
Repeat vaccination has two big problems. The first is it aims to slow the spread of new strains through the community (currentlly omicron). Given protection only lasts three months, the result of this may well be to ensure an outbreak just continues endlessly, as people become susceptible again before the slower burning outbreak has used up all the available hosts and died out naturally. Which extends the economic harm without in the end reducing the final total of cases. Indeed, its looking like the result is to end up with more not less cases and multiple repeat cases. Which doesnt matter to the always safe, but extends the period of risk of those who never were safe.
The second is that infection immunity lasts twice as long against reinfection as double dose vaccine immunity ( according to zoe), and its very likely anyone who has had covid as a symptomatic infection has nothing to fear from a further infection, at least unless their health starts to deteriorate in any relevant way or by old age. All previously infected people should have been considered good to go and set free a long time since. Indeed ther was talk of issuing certificates to this effect in spring 2020. Prof ferguson acted on this hmself after he caught it, and was sacked for contradicting government rules.
Especially as the virus changes, but also because the vaccine is only a best guess of how to create effective immnity, there is a steadily diminishing return from keep giving the same vaccine again and again. It might protect you against an imaginary virus which never really existed and connot even replicate, but it is not tailored response to the real thing. We know our imune response to the real thing is significantly different to that against the vaccine. That has been claimed as the vaccine being better, but this simply sounds like hubris. medics claiming their drug makes the human immune system work better against covid than it woud do for itself when analysing the real virus rather than a human analog.
Its a big risk the government is taking tryiing to discourage safe people from catching the real omicron disease and having a less effective vaccination instead. Wich will reduce their broad immunity for the future when they with age move into a high risk group themselves.
For most people catching omicron is currently the best vaccinatin available. (vaccination means deliberately catching a mild disease so as to guard against a future dangerous one. See Edward jenner.)
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,138
|
Post by domjg on Jan 7, 2022 9:50:55 GMT
a red faced Tory Brexiter. That will have to be Blue faced on UKPR2-have a word with lululemonmustdobetter .........actually do you think, on reflection, that your remark is a bit faceist ?  Guilty me lud. I'm sure a Bristol jury would acquit me though |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jan 7, 2022 9:55:49 GMT
robert I'm sick of people (including some of my own wider family members) bandying the term 'woke' around as an insult with absolutely no attempt to define what it means or even less why the current Labour party is apparently so awash with it. Please give a definition of what you think it means or don't use it. I'm beginning to get the impression from some that their definition of it is simply anyone/anything that isn't a red faced Tory Brexiter. Is it that being anti 'woke' is just handy emotionless shorthand for being against racial awareness/equality, being homophobic etc.. etc.. I think it's the equivalent of left wing people calling people on the right 'gammon' Gammon simply means red-faced, flushed with anger. 'Woke' means awake to injustice and inequality. The left call Brexiters and Tories 'gammon' to deride their constant anger about any changes in society (used to be 'disgusted of Tonbridge Wells'.) The right call the left 'woke' to deride the left's support for societal change. Both are meaningless stereotypical generalisations that allow people to avoid having to explain calmly and justify why they dislike what the other side is doing (and possibly to get upticks on the Daily Mail comment pages.) (For balance you sometimes see 'gammon' used on the Guardian comment pages.) Pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 7, 2022 10:03:57 GMT
What I find disturbing about the verdict is that despite obvious evidence of guilt the jury chose to ignore it and, in effect, embark upon the same campaign as the offenders.
Surely the sensible outcome was to find them guilty and for the judge to apply a sentence that acknowledged the other issues surrounding the case. Rather like the Duchess of Sussex's damages. And to avoid doubt I do realise one was a criminal and the other a civil case.
|
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Jan 7, 2022 10:05:19 GMT
Thanks Danny for this long and well-argued reply (9.33 a.m.) to my question on which groups do you think should be repeatedly given anti-CV vaccines.
I can see the merit of your plan to let CV-immunity develop by infection from omicron for some younger groups, but IMHO we haven`t yet the data about their mixing with older and very-at-risk groups to be able to balance the losses against the gains. There are still too many unknowns, and events like Starmer catching CV twice (? different strains) that need to be measured and understood.
With different social arrangements between community types, racial groups, regions, it may well be that there is no single best-plan for the UK. There is also the incidence of long covid to consider.
So for the present, I am pleased that we do have the 4th/booster jab programme operating for some groups. And as you say, this may in time merge with the annual winter flue jabbing, saving much expense but giving good protection to the vulnerable. I don`t think our governments have been honest enough with us in putting on record the declines in vaccine effectiveness, but recognise that they have a difficult job dealing very diverse and often unfounded public views.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,507
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 7, 2022 10:05:34 GMT
Oh the irony, Faraage complaining about sovereign independent countries deciding on their own borders controls
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jan 7, 2022 10:05:51 GMT
robert I'm sick of people (including some of my own wider family members) bandying the term 'woke' around as an insult with absolutely no attempt to define what it means or even less why the current Labour party is apparently so awash with it. Please give a definition of what you think it means or don't use it. I'm beginning to get the impression from some that their definition of it is simply anyone/anything that isn't a red faced Tory Brexiter. Is it that being anti 'woke' is just handy emotionless shorthand for being against racial awareness/equality, being homophobic etc.. etc.. I have looked online in the past, and found two definitions of woke. One is something along the lines of it being the the noble pursuit of injustice. Another, is that it is an unfair insult levelled at the noble pursuers of injustice. (it might have originally simply been “aware” of injustice. “Awake” to it). It is possible that the pro-woke people wrote both definitions. And while there may indeed be numerous examples fitting both definitions, it is possible that there is a third definition: occasions where people might clothe themselves in righteousness to condemn others, when in fact they might not really be all that woke in the positive sense. (Thus the woke might at times be subject to an examination to see if there might be some double standards or hypocrisy involved, since that can betray any less positive agenda behind the wokery. Which they might not like very much). A potential, oft cited example of the toxic hijacking of wokery, might be that Gillette ad, where it might seem like an attempt to frame behaviour exhibited by both some men and some women (and indeed rejected by many men and women) - e.g. bullying, patronising others etc. - as being masculine. or maybe it was an innocent error. Or they just thought they were selling too many razors. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jan 7, 2022 10:06:15 GMT
What I find disturbing about the verdict is that despite obvious evidence of guilt the jury chose to ignore it and, in effect, embark upon the same campaign as the offenders. Surely the sensible outcome was to find them guilty and for the judge to apply a sentence that acknowledged the other issues surrounding the case. Rather like the Duchess of Sussex's damages. And to avoid doubt I do realise one was a criminal and the other a civil case. Please read the article posted by Hireton and written by the Secret Barrister. It explains how the jury applied the law as explained to them and in accordance with the evidence. They didn't acquit on no basis whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 7, 2022 10:13:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 7, 2022 10:19:11 GMT
Thanks Danny for this long and well-argued reply (9.33 a.m.) to my question on which groups do you think should be repeatedly given anti-CV vaccines. I can see the merit of your plan to let CV-immunity develop by infection from omicron for some younger groups, but IMHO we haven`t yet the data about their mixing with older and very-at-risk groups to be able to balance the losses against the gains. There are still too many unknowns, and events like Starmer catching CV twice (? different strains) that need to be measured and understood. With different social arrangements between community types, racial groups, regions, it may well be that there is no single best-plan for the UK. There is also the incidence of long covid to consider. So for the present, I am pleased that we do have the 4th/booster jab programme operating for some groups. And as you say, this may in time merge with the annual winter flue jabbing, saving much expense but giving good protection to the vulnerable. I don`t think our governments have been honest enough with us in putting on record the declines in vaccine effectiveness, but recognise that they have a difficult job dealing very diverse and often unfounded public views. I think that's a very valid point DVL. How do you identify and provide vaccine to the vulnerable? In our experience the government's attempts at identifying relevant people have been a bit hit and miss. Mrs SDA was told to isolate at the very beginning, we weren't sure why and could only think that it was because she suffered a lung based issue 14 years before. Later she was told she could stand down. Myself, at 70 plus, with a dodgy heart and only one kidney that doesn't function as well as it should, heard nothing. I suspect that if you asked a doctor they'd probably say I was more at risk, but the guidelines didn't mention my specific ailments. Given the complexities and interweaving of symptoms, home types and familial relationships/support options you could end up with a tiny cohort that wasn't considered at risk to themselves or others |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 7, 2022 10:20:01 GMT
As to increasing sentences In the 18th Century punishment for a number of offences was increased to hanging, as a consequence Juries became much less likely to convict. Although we are talking about a much more severe punishment then it was of course in an environment where attitudes are very different from now. I posit the question: if sentences are increased so that Juries no longer believe the punishment fits the crime will that lead to more jury acquittals? If so would that lead to more calls for the abandonment of the jury system? I should add in my experience most judges would be horrified at the idea of bringing in a verdict themselves! tancred : for information: approximately 95% of offences are already dealt with by magistrates, how much further do you wish to curtail the Crown Court jurisdiction? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,529
|
Post by Danny on Jan 7, 2022 10:35:53 GMT
Thanks Danny for this long and well-argued reply (9.33 a.m.) to my question on which groups do you think should be repeatedly given anti-CV vaccines. I can see the merit of your plan to let CV-immunity develop by infection from omicron for some younger groups, but IMHO we haven`t yet the data about their mixing with older and very-at-risk groups to be able to balance the losses against the gains. This morning on R4 there was someone complaining about the harm done to older people locked away in care homes unable to be visited by friends and relatives and dying alone. Very largley not from covid. She wasnt arguing for no restrictions but was arguing the harm done by restrictions has exceeded the good. So..in considering the gains claimed for older people, no one seems to be counting these much more numeous cases of harm done to old people.
Personally I'm in the imtermediate age risk bracket. I'd call it young safe (generally now considered under 50), intermediate some risk, oldest significant risk. I regard two years lock down as wasting the best remaining two years of my life. We had Ken Clarke who is somewhat older saying the same, that people would be allowed to make their own choices. When I was young, there was the real risk of HIV in the UK and I concluded then the only course was to proceed with caution, but get on with life. In my own case I am doubly incensed bcause I am certain I had covid in 2019, so from my personal perspective this has been comletely pointless. But the threat against the old has been used to blackmail the young, when the old if asked might have chosen for themselves to not have the rules.
When describing people as 'very at risk', you need to recall the overall death rate in an outbreak has only ever been 0.1% of the UK population ( or similalry anywhere else whatever they did or didnt do), which is a tiny death rate, especially when it affects predominantly people with rather short life expectancy anyway (the classic stat, national average age at death 80 average age at death from covid 82).
Another item in this mornings news was talking about the growth of senile dementia cases. Covid was always a self limiting illness which kills few if nothing is done and which would have died out all by itself with relatively few deaths before now absent intervention. Whereas senility is a permanent conition which will never disappear without some medical treatment being developed. Had all the money spent on covid been spent on dementia instead, I fancy we would all have been much much better served. (a significant percentage of covid deaths were also dementia sufferers).
Yet another respondent on R4 said that in the UK life expectancy has increased 2 years for every passing decade in the recent century. So everyone has benefitted massively from general expenditure on health care. And much of that is on basis stuff like living conditions, food and water. World expenditure on covid is vast. Imagine how much extra life it could have bought us if spent on generally applicable medical research instead.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,529
|
Post by Danny on Jan 7, 2022 10:42:07 GMT
I think that's a very valid point DVL. How do you identify and provide vaccine to the vulnerable? In our experience the government's attempts at identifying relevant people have been a bit hit and miss. Mrs SDA was told to isolate at the very beginning, we weren't sure why and could only think that it was because she suffered a lung based issue 14 years before. Later she was told she could stand down. Myself, at 70 plus, with a dodgy heart and only one kidney that doesn't function as well as it should, heard nothing. I suspect that if you asked a doctor they'd probably say I was more at risk, but the guidelines didn't mention my specific ailments. Given the complexities and interweaving of symptoms, home types and familial relationships/support options you could end up with a tiny cohort that wasn't considered at risk to themselves or others South Africa only vaccinated 30% of the population. I dont know, but sounds like there was a lot of self selection based upon general advice, but targeted at the obviously older and sicker. I've no problem with Mrs SDA getting a vaccine or lists being revised as we went along, though there were well developed lists of risk factors long before any vaccine was available. However what we have had is simmply a propaganda campaignn inended to frighten people into being vaccinated without scientific justification this is realy worthwhile. Poitically gvernment needs the Uk population to beleve it was saved by a vaccination campaign, when actually it was not. We are still in the realm of political justification for intervention and expenditure. That is the most important govenment prority now. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 7, 2022 10:49:00 GMT
A fair proportion of the money spent on covid has been spent on medical research and from what I've heard, rather like in a war, there have been major advances in knowledge that are having and will have substantial future benefits in all sorts of other areas of medicine. At the same time lessons will have been learned in managing future epidemics etc via public communication, segregation, infection control, capability and capacity worldwide.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jan 7, 2022 10:52:28 GMT
A fair proportion of the money spent on covid has been spent on medical research and from what I've heard, rather like in a war, there have been major advances in knowledge that are having and will have substantial future benefits in all sorts of other areas of medicine. At the same time lessons will have been learned in managing future epidemics etc via public communication, segregation, infection control, capability and capacity worldwide. And sadly, quite a few of those lessons - both medical and also in managing epidemics - had already been learned. They were ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 7, 2022 11:05:15 GMT
Shouldn't there have been a yougov today? I thought the Friday one was for the Times so unless the Times isn't bothered with "breaking news exclusives" I assumed it would have been in today's edition???
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,722
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 11:05:49 GMT
steamdrivenandy Over the years there have been many bizarre moments where I have looked at a jury decision and thought wtf were they looking at the same evidence as me, there have been many more when I think they have reached the right decision including acquittals. Having some evidence of guilt isn't sufficient under our system to produce a guilty verdict it needs to be sufficient as to leave a reasonable person with no reasonable doubt. Police don't work on the same principles the criteria for charge is sufficiency of evidence to support the allegation on the balance of probabilities proceeding to trial or caution then required either the defendant to accept their culpability or their being significantly better than even chance that the evidence provided is sufficient under beyond reasonable doubt criteria to achieve a conviction and that such a c conviction is in the public interest. If a jury rationally decides that there is other evidence that introduces a reasonable element of doubt then even if they think the defendant guilty they should acquit. As I understand it with the slave trader statue case an element of doubt was engendered by the defence raising the possibility that the statue was there illegally therefore rendering its removal lawful. Seems to push the boundaries of reasonable doubt to be frank, but doesn't exceed them . I've seen far worse egregious decisions made by both juries and stipendary magistrates
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,138
|
Post by domjg on Jan 7, 2022 11:07:06 GMT
robert I'm sick of people (including some of my own wider family members) bandying the term 'woke' around as an insult with absolutely no attempt to define what it means or even less why the current Labour party is apparently so awash with it. Please give a definition of what you think it means or don't use it. I'm beginning to get the impression from some that their definition of it is simply anyone/anything that isn't a red faced Tory Brexiter. Is it that being anti 'woke' is just handy emotionless shorthand for being against racial awareness/equality, being homophobic etc.. etc.. I think it's the equivalent of left wing people calling people on the right 'gammon' Gammon simply means red-faced, flushed with anger. 'Woke' means awake to injustice and inequality. The left call Brexiters and Tories 'gammon' to deride their constant anger about any changes in society (used to be 'disgusted of Tonbridge Wells'.) The right call the left 'woke' to deride the left's support for societal change. Both are meaningless stereotypical generalisations that allow people to avoid having to explain calmly and justify why they dislike what the other side is doing (and possibly to get upticks on the Daily Mail comment pages.) (For balance you sometimes see 'gammon' used on the Guardian comment pages.) Pointless. "For balance you sometimes see 'gammon' used on the Guardian comment pages" - I came bit too close to doing that just now it's true.. Apologies for that. I completely agree with what you say but I also think that the term 'woke' has been used by the right most recently as a propaganda tool to insinuate that people looking to address justice and inequality actually have more nefarious, radical (but never clearly defined) agendas than they really do. To scare conservatives into thinking they want to tear everything down (ie all that nonsense over Winterval' though I know that's nothing new). If the DM for example can class an idea as 'woke' then for it's readers it may as well have been invented by Stalin and will be automatically invalidated and they won't even look at it. |
|
