|
|
Post by graham on Apr 16, 2024 20:44:44 GMT
A comment grom politicalbetting.com - ' Derek Underwood anecdote. When I was a little kid, I spent all my summers at Headingley collecting autographs. I still have them - Sobers (my prize one), Pollock, Boycott (yes, even Geoffrey), Graveney, Dexter, Cowdrey and loads more of the greats. But not Derek Underwood's. He was obnoxious, and told us to go away in the rudest terms. He went from hero to zero in seconds, and I've never forgotten or forgiven. ' It wasn't you by any chance ... It was not. I have never watched cricket other than on TV back in the days the BBC covered Test Matches. I was born and grew up in Pembrokeshire! He obviously offended a guy who had been really keen at collecting autographs of cricketers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Apr 16, 2024 20:56:19 GMT
@fecklessmiser and pjw1961The point is that Brussels is in the EU, indeed the main HQ. Do you really think that EU apparatchiks didn't have a quiet word in the ear of the mayor? Farage didn't go out of his way to endear himself to them. Indeed I expect he suggested Brussels as the venue in order to p--- them off. www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-51294356 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2024 21:00:14 GMT
@fecklessmiser and pjw1961 The point is that Brussels is in the EU, indeed the main HQ. Do you really think that EU apparatchiks didn't have a quiet word in the ear of the mayor? Farage didn't go out of his way to endear himself to them. Indeed I expect he suggested Brussels as the venue in order to p--- them off. www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-51294356That really is pathetic anti-EU “surmising”. Below I have listed all of your supporting facts and evidence: |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Apr 16, 2024 21:09:03 GMT
mark61 I see that as only a theoretical possibility. Given that his ex fixer and now witness in this case Michael Cohen has already been convicted in the same court while acting on Trumps behest for effectively the same offence it's difficult to see how there could be any reasonable doubt. you will I'm sure be stunned to discover I take a more cautious view  The legal technicalities are not really my area, but as I understand it there are a couple of key issues with that summary. Firstly that Cohen wasn't unanimously convicted by a jury, he pleaded guilty, and as part of a plea bargain heavily featuring leniency for his own tax evasion - so the charges he accepted were an overall package based on what the prosecutors wanted, rather than every one necessarily being watertight in its own right. That also means that the most contentious part of the DA's case hasn't been tested by a court at all yet, namely that they can use the intention to commit election fraud to escalate the false accounting from a misdemeanour to a felony. Claiming Trump was trying to fraudulently win New York State might be a pretty tough sell, and if the argument is about the national election then Trump's legal team will likely bog that down on appeal, arguing that New York doesn't have the authority to rule on whether someone was fraudulently trying to win a federal election in eg Pennsylvania. Secondly, that Cohen has admitted previously lying under oath. So when he appears as the key witness in this case, his testimony will be essentially prefaced with "Yes I'm a corrupt disbarred lawyer who has committed perjury when it suited me. But I super super pinky-promise I'm telling nothing but the truth *this* time!". Doesn't mean he isn't of course, or that the jury won't believe him. But those are two reasons why I have some significant doubt whether this is going to end in the outcome you seem to expect, or indeed will necessarily be resolved at all before November. mark61 - to give my best guess answer to your original question, I suspect that if Trump is acquitted, or more plausibly is convicted of false accounting etc but not the more serious charges and doesn't get a prison sentence then I would expect the electoral impact to be no change, because neither scenario would really change anyone's minds about what happened or whether it matters. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Apr 16, 2024 21:22:31 GMT
While I missed the action, I'm rather upset that colin appears to have departed. I hope he sees fit to return. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,120
|
Post by domjg on Apr 16, 2024 21:25:49 GMT
@fecklessmiser and pjw1961 The point is that Brussels is in the EU, indeed the main HQ. Do you really think that EU apparatchiks didn't have a quiet word in the ear of the mayor? Farage didn't go out of his way to endear himself to them. Indeed I expect he suggested Brussels as the venue in order to p--- them off. www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-51294356That really is pathetic anti-EU “surmising”. Below I have listed all of your supporting facts and evidence: 'Brussels' is a trigger word for brexiters. Possibly second only to 'woke' in terms of words to set them off. It's the dragon's lair, the source of perpetual conspiracy against free born Englishmen, a line regurgitated by right wing newspapers over the course of decades. If this had happened in say, Rotterdam, there'd have been far less comment on it. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Apr 16, 2024 21:36:38 GMT
Meanwhile, this, from the German health minister, illustrates how divergent the UK is from many other countries in grappling with the ongoing covid pandemic -
Here, Karl Lauterbach lays out a few homes truths; repeat infections carry an ongoing risk of long covid; vaccination reduces that risk, but only by 40%; children are affected as much as adults; there is no cure; there are no effective medications for the worst level of LC; the use of paxlovid in the acute phase now appears to be ineffective at preventing long covid, contrary to earlier hopes.
The difference is that Germany has a minister warning of this, and they are busy setting up centres of excellence where patients can get the best help available. Lauterbach has consistently highlighted how covid continues to damage the German economy and is affecting education. In the UK, the NHS has closed most of the specialist long covid clinics, it's denied as a cause for high workplace and classroom absenteeism, and vaccines and treatments are increasingly denied to those deemed vulnerable and the people who care for them.
Even the CDC has been talking of the surge in long covid cases this year and the need to address the issue.
This remains a huge issue, but like the very best elephants in rooms, there is near total silence on the issue.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,120
|
Post by domjg on Apr 16, 2024 21:39:24 GMT
Thinking aloud... The tories are clinging on hoping that something - anything - will save them from a hiding at the next GE. Could the crisis in the middle east be that thing? The world is currently holding it's breath, waitin to see what Israel will do in response to the Iranian attack at the weekend. What happens next could potentially have profound consequences, not ust for the region, but, the world. Could people rally behind the governent in a time of crisis? We saw this uring WWII, the Falklands war and in more recent times, in the early days of covid / the 'vaccine bounce'. Personally, I do not, at least yet, see it moving the dial, but, could it? Yes. Let's all just pray that the Tories' desperation doesn't cause them to lead us to war. If they started being more 'reckless' in terms of visibly greater commitment to Ukraine then I for one would welcome that. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on Apr 16, 2024 22:08:25 GMT
@fecklessmiser and pjw1961 The point is that Brussels is in the EU, indeed the main HQ. Do you really think that EU apparatchiks didn't have a quiet word in the ear of the mayor? Farage didn't go out of his way to endear himself to them. Indeed I expect he suggested Brussels as the venue in order to p--- them off. www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-51294356"Do you really think that EU apparatchiks didn't have a quiet word in the ear of the mayor?" - Yes I really think that. Edit: it seems the PM of Belgium is not happy with the mayor - perhaps he didn't get the note from the EU commissars www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/16/belgian-mayor-natcon-conference-braverman-farage-brussels |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on Apr 16, 2024 22:20:14 GMT
He won't get any thanks for it from his own side, but well done to Rishi Sunak for pushing through the smoking ban bill. He will have the satisfaction of knowing he did the right thing and will leave a real legacy that will save thousands of lives.It will if you believe banning things stops them happening. Sadly history suggests it just enriches criminals - see "the war on drugs" and "US prohibition of alcohol". |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Apr 16, 2024 22:21:30 GMT
If they started being more 'reckless' in terms of visibly greater commitment to Ukraine then I for one would welcome that. I would too I think part of the problem is we don't have that much to give - our military spending focusses on boats and nukes, not ammunition and artillery and vehicles |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on Apr 16, 2024 23:35:56 GMT
eorThe Traitor is doing everything possible to piss off his court and the potential jurors with observed interjections about jurors,and continued insults relating to the judge and lies about his rulings, that's when he manages to actually stay awake, Don Snoreleoni was nodding off again in court. youtu.be/num0obNfSCw?si=UBh8DqT71YxvMgxe
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,352
|
Post by neilj on Apr 17, 2024 4:40:55 GMT
The thing that may save Trump is that as far as I understand he only needs one Juror out of 12 to say not guilty
Even with Jury selection what are the chances there won't be atleast one Trump fan in the Jury
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2024 5:19:08 GMT
neilj If the trial judge gets an inclination that a juror has a preconceived opinion on the verdict, for example if they are paid or intimidated to reach a particular decision or transpire to be a cult member of the organisation led by the defendant, the judge can replace them with an alternate( around 6 alternates are selected as well as the 12 jury panel). This can happen at any time during the trial prior to the time they retire to reach a verdict, alternatively the court can proceed with just 11 jurors. A Don Snoreleoni obsessive will have to have been invisible in terms of previous activity at jury selection, lied on the jury questionnaire ( a felony) and then not brought themselves to the attention of the court or other jurors during the trial, if jurors are concerned over another juror they are required to inform the court. The removal is at the discretion of the trial judge. Being a Trump supporter wouldn't in itself be reason for removal it's the failure to reach a decision based on the evidence presented in the trial. This isn't a guarantee of no bizarre decisions from jurors , I've seen some , but it is reasonably effective in excluding corrupted jurors. Majority verdicts are not allowed in civilian criminal cases in the United States. A hung jury results in a mistrial it isn't an acquittal and the case can be heard again with a new jury.. 7 jurors have now been selected in the New York case. As their details are made public we know that jurist number one is an immigrant from Ireland , who used to be a waiter another is a nurse and there's a lawyer on the jury as well.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2024 5:40:01 GMT
There are reasons unrelated to a pandemic why children are absent from schools.
Some children living in dire housing conditions have been woken up by chesty coughs caused by damp, others by the smell of sewage leaking down their walls. Toby* was woken by rats on his chest.
“It was midnight and he came to me crying,” said his mother, who does not want to be named. He is one of more than 3,800 children living in temporary accommodation in Lewisham, the council with the 10th highest number of children living in such housing in the UK.
Nationally, 142,000 homeless children are living in places like commercial hotels, converted offices and dingy hostels, an all-time high, after rents and no-fault evictions have soared across the country.
Schools have seen the impact of this first-hand. Last week, a National Education Union survey found that 59% of teachers in England and Wales had seen their students experience frequent ill health due to poverty, with housing a major factor. In Lewisham, south London, 11 headteachers have signed a letter to the council declaring a local housing emergency is jeopardising the health of their students.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,297
|
Post by Danny on Apr 17, 2024 6:32:38 GMT
Meanwhile, this, from the German health minister, illustrates how divergent the UK is from many other countries in grappling with the ongoing covid pandemic - Here, Karl Lauterbach lays out a few homes truths; repeat infections carry an ongoing risk of long covid; vaccination reduces that risk, but only by 40%; children are affected as much as adults; there is no cure; there are no effective medications for the worst level of LC; the use of paxlovid in the acute phase now appears to be ineffective at preventing long covid, contrary to earlier hopes. The difference is that Germany has a minister warning of this, and they are busy setting up centres of excellence where patients can get the best help available. Lauterbach has consistently highlighted how covid continues to damage the German economy and is affecting education. In the UK, the NHS has closed most of the specialist long covid clinics, it's denied as a cause for high workplace and classroom absenteeism, and vaccines and treatments are increasingly denied to those deemed vulnerable and the people who care for them. Even the CDC has been talking of the surge in long covid cases this year and the need to address the issue. This remains a huge issue, but like the very best elephants in rooms, there is near total silence on the issue. Well thats interesting alec but what conclusions do you draw from this, and why keep raising covid here? I take some conclusions: 1) Covid is now a minor issue, no worse than others. Thats obvious, the streets are not littered with covid dead. 2) Vaccines frankly failed. You say drug treatments which did have some effect, now do not to the mutated virus. None of that is surprising, once it was concluded covid could mutate rather than being fixed, then it was always going to change to evade established natural immunity, artificial vaccine immunity and any drug treatments. 3) The NHS will be spending its money as effectively as it can. You are calling for special spending on covid, but obviously the NHS thinks it has better uses for that money treating other things. The real issue for the NHS is eg 20% less money per capita than australia. But since we are 40% poorer than australia, that raises the question how miss governance of the Uk has created this situation of decline such that we cannot afford modern standards of health care such as in australia or Germany. What this does illustrate is how the national policy to try to suppress covid until a vaccine arrived was wholly pointless. Hastings had the first covid strain winter 19/20 before the rest of the nation and never caught it again, its immunity lasted until the next (Kent) strain developed and started spreading. Its called Kent, but actually that doesnt preclude it arrived there from somewhere else because of the transport links. Vaccine effectiveness against kent was disappointing. The UK is incapable of completely isolating, we would just starve and very quickly run out of all sorts of stuff. The policy of international isolation was in many ways impossible for the UK from the start. So kent arrived and spread across the nation once again, despite newly imposed lockdowns. In fact it was rising in hastings during the November lockdown and then fell back during the December relaxation, so once again the timing of the disease in Hastings illustrated the pointlessness of those further lockdowns. The attempt at local lockdowns failed totally, probably because lockdowns just dont work anyway, we simply cannot isolate enough to make it work (the number of essential workers is huge and people still have to get food, medical services and other supplies). It seems highly likely the success of various pacific countries at keeping out covid was because they already had more immunity to covid than did Europe. Immunity from related sars and mers diseases works against the original covid too. It wasnt a new disease but a variant on a theme which had already hit human populations and left a legacy of immunity. And where this was strongest, so covid was least effective. It wasnt isolation which saved them from the first strain and that wave of deaths, but because they had already had similar diseases (presumably with their own death toll in the past). All they did was damage their economies by closing down trade. Although its possible had they allowed the first wave to run through the piopulation, then it would have boosted immunty naturally and so protected them against the new strains coming along. The problem is that the longer lapses between re-catching diseases like this, the more they have changed and so the more dangerous they are. Covid was dangerous because it had not been freely present in the human population for a long time.
Alec, you seem to want to keep claiming covid is the biggest threat to human health. It isnt. Its total death toll is pretty small. The experimental approach used by world governments of trying to close down travel across the whole world and then end the epidemic with a vaccine....uterly failed. That has never been attempted before, and it didnt work this time either. quarrantines have been used before, but never on this scale, but on the whole they do not and cannot work because humans are too inter dependant. You cannot close down everything at once or everyone just dies anyway. An expert at the start noted that isolation can only end an epidemic if it is associated with a completely effective vaccine. Totally failed! Hastings and various other places (was it birmingham in the second wave?) showed that covid NEVER rose exponentially as simplisticly claimed by government experts. Rather, it was already tailing off at around the point it started to seriously impact medical services. It ended naturally in hastings, and began ending in various other places - as could be seen by the published statistics at the time- before later wave lockdowns were imposed. Lockdowsn didnt do anything which wasnt happening naturally anyway, and to the extent they did slow spread, what they must therefore have done is extend the duration of outbreaks, increasing the time during which the disease could spread to people really at risk because they are immune compromised either by other health issues or old age.
Slowing the evolution of an epidemic like this INCREASES the opportunity for new mutations to arise, because you keep the old version going long enough for past victims immunity to drop and become susceptible again to a good new mutation. The early 2020 outbreak would have ended completely naturally that spring, whereas we kept it going and able to stage a comeback in parts of England when schools reopened in the autumn. We made it last long enough that it stood a chance of finding a new variant which could reinfect. It was a massive failure of governance which most governments are desperate to deny.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,352
|
Post by neilj on Apr 17, 2024 6:35:38 GMT
Savanta
NEW Westminster Voting Intention for
@telegraph
📈18pt Labour lead
🌹Lab 43 (+1)
🌳Con 25 (-2)
🔶LD 10 (=)
➡️Reform 9 (-1)
🌍Green 4 (=)
🎗️SNP 3 (=)
⬜️Other 4 (=)
2,221 UK adults, 12-14 April
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2024 6:35:49 GMT
There are few creditable things this regime has attempted but addressing the danger of smoking cancer inducing products is one of them.
I'm broadly in favour of the smoking ban legislation, the problems relating to implementation are real but overstated.
It's likely to prevent significant numbers of premature deaths.
The legislation passed at first hearing last night with nearly 400 votes in favour.
The problem for the Sunakered regime was that when it came to his own party around half voted against or abstained.
The bizarre situation was added to when Health Secretary Victoria Atkins seemed to forget that the Tories were in office and started questioning shadow minister Wes Streeting on how the Labour government was going to implement it.
Sunakered isn't going to have much of a legacy after his period in office but this could have been perceived as something positive, popular and with cross party support.
But all too much for team clustershambles.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Apr 17, 2024 6:45:03 GMT
Danny - " It ended naturally in hastings, and began ending in various other places - as could be seen by the published statistics at the time- before later wave lockdowns were imposed." Just picked this line out of the stream of garbage as a great illustration of your unwillingness to learn. It's extremely well established across multiple countries by multiple empirical measurements that social behaviours altered the path of case numbers independently of formal government action. You need to be seriously thick to not appreciate this, I'm afraid. We saw it recently in the JN.1 wave, with a marked uptick in masking and avoidance of large events by some, and measures in quite a large number of hospitals to reinstate mask mandates and other controls. Infection rates altered before lockdowns because the public were protecting themselves, and they rose before restrictions were formally lifted due to the reverse process. Get to understand what actually happened and you might start to understand where you are going so wrong.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,297
|
Post by Danny on Apr 17, 2024 6:50:23 GMT
He won't get any thanks for it from his own side, but well done to Rishi Sunak for pushing through the smoking ban bill. He will have the satisfaction of knowing he did the right thing and will leave a real legacy that will save thousands of lives.It will if you believe banning things stops them happening. Sadly history suggests it just enriches criminals - see "the war on drugs" and "US prohibition of alcohol". And please note, you arent 'saving lives'. There is no guarantee if you do not smoke that you will never die. Just a few years later on average. And not that many years later, if you smoke when young but give up in middle age. Most of the added risk from smoking dissipates ten years after giving up, so if you give up before risk becomes significant then lifetime risk is relatively small. It seems only about half conservative MPs voted for the tobacco ban, which means the measure was carried by labour votes. Labour votes to ban sales of tobacco. So the government gets the benefit of support from those who like this measure, but also deflects blame from those who do not like it to labour. It was conservative who introduced it, but also conservatives who opposed it. The same tactic as brexit and covid restrictions. Make sure your opponent is implicated. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,297
|
Post by Danny on Apr 17, 2024 6:56:28 GMT
If they started being more 'reckless' in terms of visibly greater commitment to Ukraine then I for one would welcome that. I would too. I think part of the problem is we don't have that much to give - our military spending focusses on boats and nukes, not ammunition and artillery and vehicles This was true, but two years duration of this war was plenty of time to start manufacturing ammunition to send to ukraine. The government chose not to do this. Much of what we did send was the second best reserve stock, eg the missile launchers we sent were actually the ones withdrawn from use after we had upgraded and refurbished the ones we wanted to use for ourselves. The west has always sent its second best equipment, and having run out of that is now faced with buying and sending first line equipment, or ceasing to support Ukraine. Most of the help has come from the US, and right now they have halted aiding Ukraine. Europe has not filled that gap. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2024 7:00:11 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,605
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2024 7:05:21 GMT
Danny
Both us and European military equipment sent to Ukraine has been from strategic reserves, not all of this by any means is old , however some isn't front line new equipment.
Primarily this is because the Ukrainian military aren't equipped to maintain this or trained to use it effectively and the U.S. And NATO allies don't want their newest equipment falling into the hands of the Russians and secondly because munition manufacturing hasn't been ramped up anywhere in Europe or the U.S. to reflect greater demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Apr 17, 2024 7:17:50 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,297
|
Post by Danny on Apr 17, 2024 7:46:24 GMT
There are few creditable things this regime has attempted but addressing the danger of smoking cancer inducing products is one of them....The problem for the Sunakered regime was that when it came to his own party around half voted against or abstained. I honestly do not see this as a disadvantage. he introduced the legislation and so will get the credit from supporters having done so. But people who oppose this will be mollified that about half conservative MPs failed to support it, whereas labour did. I think this is being portrayed as weakness, but actually it works to get the best of both worlds, supporting and opposing something and so seeking to get everyone on your side. Its a regular conservative strategy. How many? And how premature? How many 'quality life years' are being saved? Not forgetting as I posted above, that for a long time it has been admitted that a youngster smoking until say 40 minimises their lifetime risk. It seems to be being assumed that if there are still 6 million smokers in the UK, they will all go on to develop smoking diseases as people did in the first half of last century. But actually its more likely they will quit and avoid most of those risks. Again, you have to ask how much money is going to be lost by government if they do succeed in eradicating smoking. If we assume all the profit made from taxes on smoking compared to costs no longer goes to the NHS, how much worse does that make overall health care and therefore increase deaths from other causes? Id remind people of the sugar tax. recent evidence is that removing sugar from foods does not reduce obesity, people just eat more. and artificial sweetners used instead have been found to be harmful. Thats a great legacy too. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Apr 17, 2024 7:48:01 GMT
While I missed the action, I'm rather upset that colin appears to have departed. I hope he sees fit to return. I believe there may be questions in the House about this matter of national importance. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Apr 17, 2024 7:50:08 GMT
Savanta NEW Westminster Voting Intention for @telegraph 📈18pt Labour lead 🌹Lab 43 (+1) 🌳Con 25 (-2) 🔶LD 10 (=) ➡️Reform 9 (-1) 🌍Green 4 (=) 🎗️SNP 3 (=) ⬜️Other 4 (=) 2,221 UK adults, 12-14 April Is the smoking ban the smoking gun here, explaining this dramatic drop in Tory support? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,297
|
Post by Danny on Apr 17, 2024 8:05:06 GMT
Danny - " It ended naturally in hastings, and began ending in various other places - as could be seen by the published statistics at the time- before later wave lockdowns were imposed." Just picked this line out of the stream of garbage as a great illustration of your unwillingness to learn. It's extremely well established across multiple countries by multiple empirical measurements that social behaviours altered the path of case numbers independently of formal government action. You need to be seriously thick to not appreciate this, I'm afraid. We saw it recently in the JN.1 wave, with a marked uptick in masking and avoidance of large events by some, and measures in quite a large number of hospitals to reinstate mask mandates and other controls. I never saw one single mask being worn in hastings winter 19/20, this came far later after government introduced legal requirements to wear them, and for those at high risk who thought to give it a try. I do not at all argue people do not naturally take steps to avoid infection if there is a disease about. what i am very much arguing is that the special interventions in particular national lockdowns only achieved squandering a truly massive amount of public money. The evidence is that S England became immune to the first wave through infection, and thats why the disease did not recur here in the autumn when schools reopened. In particular this suggests that the disease was peaking well before lockdown, because schools closed first and before general lockdown. So southern kids had already had it by then. Some schools in London reported their highest ever absence rates for illness before they were closed (with the right symptoms for covid). The disease had already infected them, it was in effect already ending. Once the young have had it then it stops spreading because its the young spreading it, having most of the cases, and keeping it going. Once they have all (and safely) had it, its over. What we did was slow the rate it spread through the young, keeping it going for six months so it could infect more high risk people, who then died. It did then die out, which also suggests the first strain had already infected pretty much the whole (young) population anyway, or at least enough to create herd immunity to that first strain.
Its true though that covid was rife in hospitals throughout the spring, which meant uninfected old people brought in for other reasons were catching it within the hospital and so dying. This became a major source of covid deaths. But the problem was not solvable by extending general lockdown, which is what government did. It was fundamentally a problem of constantly bringing new susceptible people to a centre where they would be infected. This isnt exactly a new phenomenon, hospitals are high risk places for catching diseases, always. It had already led to plans to redesign them with single rooms instead of wards and whatever anti cross infection measures could be used. (ventilation, drains) I wonder to what extent countries which have done more in this respect, did better against covid.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Apr 17, 2024 8:05:38 GMT
While I missed the action, I'm rather upset that colin appears to have departed. I hope he sees fit to return. I believe there may be questions in the House about this matter of national importance. I missed it too. Did he take his ball home? |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Apr 17, 2024 8:11:49 GMT
He won't get any thanks for it from his own side, but well done to Rishi Sunak for pushing through the smoking ban bill. He will have the satisfaction of knowing he did the right thing and will leave a real legacy that will save thousands of lives.It will if you believe banning things stops them happening. Sadly history suggests it just enriches criminals - see "the war on drugs" and "US prohibition of alcohol". This is my concern too, especially when there appears to be a targeting of a particular age group in terms of a sort of phased prohibition of the practice. Prohibition also tends to afford the thing being banned a cachet of allure. Smoking tobacco is obviously a harmful practice from a personal health point of view, but I rather felt we were making good progress in reducing its prevalence by tackling it from an educational point of view and protecting third party health risks by phasing out opportunities to smoke in public spaces. Tobacco consumption, unlike alcohol use, has no behaviour changing properties, and adults have a right to risk their health in return for personal enjoyment if they wish. I would have thought banning smoking from all public gathering points was enough. This Smoking Bill feels a bit legacy searching and gimmicky to me. I have a sneaking sympathy for some of the personal liberty arguments too. |
|
