Jump to content


Board Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About mormont

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

37,657 profile views
  1. Not everyone makes a fixed annual or even monthly income. Not everyone has permanent, year-round employment. Not everyone has only one employer. Then there are the self-employed: then there's undeclared income, dividends, various other wrinkles. If assessing everyone's income was simple, means-testing existing benefits would be simple. We know, however, that it is not.
  2. Can we not do that? I mean, a, he isn't, and b, if he was, what of it?
  3. Far too complicated, requires a lot of information and paperwork, so won't work in the short term. (If you read the article, this is why the current scheme isn't working and why the government is likely to reject tailoring payments to current income.)
  4. Not sure what point you're making here, but it appears to be a very weak one. I have scoffed, and will continue to scoff, at the idea that Government policy should be to rely on woolly appeals to 'common sense'. But this is the reverse: a specific policy to provide a specific solution to address a specific problem: that very few people with symptoms are getting tested, and the information we have suggests that this is often because they are economically unable to self-isolate. And then take two weeks off work and live in isolation while they suffer symptoms to a degree they can't predict. Young people are of course more prone to indulge in risky behaviour - that's a known fact. However, my own experience (over two decades working with young people) and my experience of working with them throughout this pandemic suggests to me that few would voluntarily make themselves sick for £500. That doesn't even replace two weeks' wages at minimum wage, which is what they'll lose. ETA - it's also worth pointing out that, even if I were wrong about this point, the situation at the moment (17% of those with symptoms getting tested) clearly must be addressed somehow. Even if one person were to deliberately catch the virus in order to get this payment, that would be more than offset by one person getting tested who wouldn't have done so without the payment, because they'll both now be isolating instead of spreading the virus. Something has to be done to address this issue. I usually hate to say it, but in this case I think it has to be said - do you have a better suggestion?
  5. Not paying people, the current approach, is encouraging people to spread the virus. And honestly, no, people are not going to deliberately catch a potentially fatal virus and sit at home alone while feeling like shit for two weeks for a measly £500. That's just silly talk. This isn't the Daily Mail comment section.
  6. Isn’t all chess 4D? Though I’m very willing to believe that Trump never plays chess.
  7. The problem for Johnson is that, as he's already implicitly accepted that her previous sacking offence - holding secret meetings behind the FO's back - should be overlooked and presented no impediment to appointing her to one of the top four jobs in government, it's difficult for him now to sack her for any less serious offence. It's particularly difficult to sack her for positioning herself for a run for PM by publicly saying she disagreed with party policy, as that's what Johnson himself spent all his ministerial time doing.
  8. I’ve been pondering the most absurd thing about that list, and I think the hands down winner has to be including indigenous people who did not fucking want to be ‘Americans’ and fought and died for the right NOT TO BE on a list of people representing ‘American values’. Alongside, it hardly needs be said, some of the folks who perpetrated genocide upon them.
  9. That is one hell of a list. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/18/958079495/i-beg-your-garden-trump-adds-hero-names-to-statue-garden-unlikely-to-take-root?t=1611010461359 full list here, go nuts with it. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-building-national-garden-american-heroes/
  10. Might be worth drawing attention to this research: Around a quarter of over-60s are not self-isolating at all if they show symptoms. Many may be unable to, of course. I'm not blaming them, necessarily. But this does help to show why the idea of simply 'walling off' the vulnerable is a nonsense. People do not work that way.
  11. Not only that: there is a weird tendency on the part of anti-lockdown folks to treat death, and only death, as the sole negative outcome associated with COVID-19 infection. If younger people get sick, they may still need medical attention, and at pandemic infection rates that's going to tie up a lot of hospital space, and make the return to 'normal' life that the anti-lockdowners want effectively impossible. Attendance at workplaces, educational institutions, public events, would all be decimated anyway, as those with COVID-19 and those at high risk stay away in droves. Not to mention the long term health impacts, which we are still discovering.
  12. It’s the thing that people always say, I know, but I have heard folk that have met him say that Fox really isn’t very well mentally, that he genuinely is desperate for attention at any price. They did also say that he also genuinely is a bit of a prick.
  13. All travel corridors closed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55681861
  14. Rarely has a sentence summed up Donald Trump more accurately and concisely.
  • Create New...