Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

1129130131133135

Comments

  • Alas, yes - the link (perhaps to an image of the Starship Enterprise?) doesn't work...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Does it not lead to an image of Starship UK? It does for me.
  • That's better - the second link works...

    :scream: :scream: :scream:

    I suspect this is Bozzymandias' dream for us all.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited June 1
    Telford wrote: »
    An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge
    Your memory is faulty, and you shouldn't be pontificating with such confidence.
    We can remember back to March last year you know.
    Chris Whitty in March 2020 and other government sources.
    See in particular this quote later down, which is describing a herd immunity strategy in all but name:
    The government is concerned that if not enough people catch the virus now, it will re-emerge in the winter, when the NHS is already overstretched.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Dave W wrote: »
    Does it not lead to an image of Starship UK? It does for me.

    It leads to a shedload of ads and trailers, none of which seem relevant.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

    and in the same article. Mass gatherings were banned. Hardly an attempt to achieve herd immunity.

    The Cheltenham Festival, 10-13 March 2020? Liverpool v Athletico Madrid, 11 March 2020, when Spain had possibly the worst surge in Europe after Italy? Both allowed to take place despite plenty of advice to cancel, and in the case of Cheltenham linked with a large number of Covid cases (unproveable due to lack of test and trace at the time). Should I mention the links between Dido Harding and the Jockey Club? There were plenty of 'chickenpox party' events like this until Johnson was persuaded that mass deaths were the most likely outcome of 'herd immunity', whether or not they used these words.

    The two events( which should not have been allowed) did not take place in order to infect people
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 1
    Yes, the evidence is surely there for all to see, who wish to see, even though the concept might not have actually been spelled out in words of one syllable...
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Leaving aside for a moment the Wedding Of The Year, which the cynic in me makes me think that Mrs Johnson is simply consolidating her position as Prime Minister, I was intrigued to see a report a few days ago in the Guardian regarding Beloved Leader's plan to build a super ship of state to assist with his plan for world domination.

    I can't find the link at the moment, but the idea is that the vessel (costing about £2m of taxpayers' money) will be a sort of flagship for Global Britain. It is to be crewed by the Royal Navy, and one suggestion for a name is Duke of Edinburgh, in honour, of course, of His late Royal Highness. Eminently appropriate, IMHO.

    However, ISTM that other suitable names could well be (say) Bozzymandias, King of Kings, or perhaps Bozzy McBozzyface...
    :wink:

    £200 million, I believe. More here (The Guardian, so take your pick)

    Wow, a lovely new ship AND a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland, too - a mere snip at £20bn. Good to see the economy has recovered!
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Leaving aside for a moment the Wedding Of The Year, which the cynic in me makes me think that Mrs Johnson is simply consolidating her position as Prime Minister, I was intrigued to see a report a few days ago in the Guardian regarding Beloved Leader's plan to build a super ship of state to assist with his plan for world domination.

    I can't find the link at the moment, but the idea is that the vessel (costing about £2m of taxpayers' money) will be a sort of flagship for Global Britain. It is to be crewed by the Royal Navy, and one suggestion for a name is Duke of Edinburgh, in honour, of course, of His late Royal Highness. Eminently appropriate, IMHO.

    However, ISTM that other suitable names could well be (say) Bozzymandias, King of Kings, or perhaps Bozzy McBozzyface...
    :wink:

    £200 million, I believe. More here (The Guardian, so take your pick)

    Wow, a lovely new ship AND a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland, too - a mere snip at £20bn. Good to see the economy has recovered!

    O - I thought the Beautiful Flagship was being proposed instead of the Beautiful Bridge!

    Silly me. Beloved Leader needs his vanity projects, I suppose.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    Insofar as no one actually said 'Our policy is herd immunity' they didn't admit as much, but it's a reasonable (and I'd argue only) inference from as far back as Patrick Vallance's interview with Sky News from March 13th of last year:

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

    and in the same article. Mass gatherings were banned. Hardly an attempt to achieve herd immunity.

    The Cheltenham Festival, 10-13 March 2020? Liverpool v Athletico Madrid, 11 March 2020, when Spain had possibly the worst surge in Europe after Italy? Both allowed to take place despite plenty of advice to cancel, and in the case of Cheltenham linked with a large number of Covid cases (unproveable due to lack of test and trace at the time). Should I mention the links between Dido Harding and the Jockey Club? There were plenty of 'chickenpox party' events like this until Johnson was persuaded that mass deaths were the most likely outcome of 'herd immunity', whether or not they used these words.

    The two events( which should not have been allowed) did not take place in order to infect people

    Because of course every government tells its people, 'These events are taking place so that we can infect as many people as possible with the virus. We believe most of you will be fine, but those who die will have contributed to building the herd immunity of the British population. God Save the Queen!'

    As if.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

    I certainly have. What's your point ?
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

    I certainly have. What's your point ?

    Your post suggests no understanding of what others have written so I was assuming you hadn't read it. It was the kinder way to understand your post.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 1
    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    (Attributed to John Heywood c.1546).

    That saying, of course, applies to the many people who continue to apologise for, or try to explain away, Johnson and his *government* in spite of all the evidence of the latter's mendacity, corruption, and incompetence.
  • ZoeZoe Shipmate
    I started the post below in Purg but moved it here.

    Hi Forthview. I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Johnson and Carrie having got married in a registry office and think this view is shared by most of those on the Ship and in the RC Church who are unhappy about Johnson having been allowed to marry in a Catholic church. Similarly, in and of itself, the question of who a Prime Minister is having sex with is of no interest whatsoever to me and I wouldn't have given two hoots if Johnson and Carrie had remained unwed. (For myself as a citizen, the question of who the Prime Minister is having sex with only becomes relevant if it impacts on things like whether he acts responsibly when giving out public money, whether it compromises how he fulfils his duty as Prime Minister, etc.) You say some people might have viewed Johnson and Carrie's pre-marriage relations as an "irregular" arrangement, but you still don't want to acknowledge how "irregular" the fact of them having been allowed to marry in an RC Church seems given all the facts and circumstances.

    What I and, I believe many others, object to is that Johnson has been permitted to make promises before God in an RC Church (1) when all the evidence available indicates Johnson will not keep, or even try to keep, such promises, and (2) when the RC Church is not well-known for going out of its way in terms of offering grace and charity to divorcees without political power and influence who wish to re-marry in a RC Church ceremony.

    You ask whether I can evidence Johnson having been sexually unfaithful since his marriage to Carrie three days ago on Saturday 29th May. No, I can't, but my strong expectation based on the evidence available is that he will be sexually unfaithful to his now-wife in the future. As stated in a previous post, for Carrie and Wilfred's sakes, I'll be delighted if I'm proven wrong on this, but believing in the possibility of people changing and in the existence of grace doesn't require becoming an idiot who abandons all powers of reasoning and all ability to assess evidence about past patterns and the likelihood of said past patterns continuing into the future.

    And I've moved my reply to Hell so that I can tell you to stop being a sanctimonious git directing your ire at me for asking relevant questions about the RC stance, rather than at our tosser of a Prime Minister who's almost certainly just taken the piss out of the RC Church, to top off the decades he's spent taking the piss out of the British people and nation.

    (I am now going to try very hard to be self-disciplined enough to not post on these threads any further because doing so is not doing my state of mind any good.)
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Yes, the evidence is surely there for all to see, who wish to see, even though the concept might not have actually been spelled out in words of one syllable...

    Damn your eyes. I'm now going to spend the whole evening trying to think of a one syllable word for immunity. :confounded:
  • O dear. Sorry about that - I can't think of one, either. My bad.
    :grimace:
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    O dear. Sorry about that - I can't think of one, either. My bad.
    :grimace:

    Safe is the closest I can do. Even with the help of an online thesaurus...
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited June 1
    I can't do it in a word of one syllable, but words of one syllable: men who have caught germs make stuff to fight those germs so they do not get ill with them next time. (Years of SEN teachimg has to have some uses.)
  • O dear. Sorry about that - I can't think of one, either. My bad.
    :grimace:

    Safe is the closest I can do. Even with the help of an online thesaurus...
    I can't do it in a word of one syllable, but words of one syllable: men who have caught germs make stuff to fight those germs so they do not get ill with them next time. (Years of SEN teachimg has to have some uses.)

    Well done, both of you!
    :wink:
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

    I certainly have. What's your point ?

    Your post suggests no understanding of what others have written so I was assuming you hadn't read it. It was the kinder way to understand your post.

    My post indicated that I have not seen any evidence of Government Herd Immunity policy.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

    I certainly have. What's your point ?

    Your post suggests no understanding of what others have written so I was assuming you hadn't read it. It was the kinder way to understand your post.

    My post indicated that I have not seen any evidence of Government Herd Immunity policy.

    Ahem.

    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge
    Your memory is faulty, and you shouldn't be pontificating with such confidence.
    We can remember back to March last year you know.
    Chris Whitty in March 2020 and other government sources.
    See in particular this quote later down, which is describing a herd immunity strategy in all but name:
    The government is concerned that if not enough people catch the virus now, it will re-emerge in the winter, when the NHS is already overstretched.

    Didn't read or didn't understand?

    This could help too: https://www.courthousenews.com/boris-johnsons-talk-of-herd-immunity-raises-alarms/?amp
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

    I certainly have. What's your point ?

    Your post suggests no understanding of what others have written so I was assuming you hadn't read it. It was the kinder way to understand your post.

    My post indicated that I have not seen any evidence of Government Herd Immunity policy.

    Ahem.

    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge
    Your memory is faulty, and you shouldn't be pontificating with such confidence.
    We can remember back to March last year you know.
    Chris Whitty in March 2020 and other government sources.
    See in particular this quote later down, which is describing a herd immunity strategy in all but name:
    The government is concerned that if not enough people catch the virus now, it will re-emerge in the winter, when the NHS is already overstretched.

    Didn't read or didn't understand?

    This could help too: https://www.courthousenews.com/boris-johnsons-talk-of-herd-immunity-raises-alarms/?amp

    Read the articles carefully. They were about the rejection of herd immunity.
  • Not rejection of herd immunity by the UK government. That article is talking in horror about the UK Government pushing for herd immunity until they were persuaded to change.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    They are about the eventual rejection of herd immunity. The plan was to 'let the virus rip' - until they were finally convinced by the evidence as to just how many people that would kill.

    We had already lost weeks at that point, and baked in tens of thousands of deaths. Then the government repeated the same mistake in September, and again in December. That's how we went from '20,000 dead would be a good result' to 150,000 dead.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited June 1
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

    I certainly have. What's your point ?

    Your post suggests no understanding of what others have written so I was assuming you hadn't read it. It was the kinder way to understand your post.

    My post indicated that I have not seen any evidence of Government Herd Immunity policy.

    Ahem.

    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge
    Your memory is faulty, and you shouldn't be pontificating with such confidence.
    We can remember back to March last year you know.
    Chris Whitty in March 2020 and other government sources.
    See in particular this quote later down, which is describing a herd immunity strategy in all but name:
    The government is concerned that if not enough people catch the virus now, it will re-emerge in the winter, when the NHS is already overstretched.

    Didn't read or didn't understand?

    This could help too: https://www.courthousenews.com/boris-johnsons-talk-of-herd-immunity-raises-alarms/?amp

    Read the articles carefully. They were about the rejection of herd immunity.

    You didn't read them carefully enough:
    “Well, herd immunity is the situation where you get so many people in the population to develop an immunity to a disease that there is no opportunity for the disease to actually become established and spread to lots of people,” said Nick Phin, deputy director of the National Infection Service.

    “Normally we do that with a vaccine,” he said. “You can do that naturally, of course, if a disease that’s not been introduced before affects a large number of people, and that’s really how herd immunity in the U.K. would develop.”

    This is also why the government didn't pursue test and trace with as much alacrity as elsewhere.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited June 1
    And are about to repeat the same mistake again, with the new Δ variant spreading fast. If we count in all those with Long Covid and the next wave, what's the betting this incompetent shower will get us to 500,000?

    Nope, I've checked, 1.1 million are reporting symptoms of Long Covid as at 30 April 2021, of which 674,000 are significantly affected and 196,000 severely affected, so we're already there and beyond. link to ONS report
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

    I certainly have. What's your point ?

    Your post suggests no understanding of what others have written so I was assuming you hadn't read it. It was the kinder way to understand your post.

    My post indicated that I have not seen any evidence of Government Herd Immunity policy.

    Ahem.

    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge
    Your memory is faulty, and you shouldn't be pontificating with such confidence.
    We can remember back to March last year you know.
    Chris Whitty in March 2020 and other government sources.
    See in particular this quote later down, which is describing a herd immunity strategy in all but name:
    The government is concerned that if not enough people catch the virus now, it will re-emerge in the winter, when the NHS is already overstretched.

    Didn't read or didn't understand?

    This could help too: https://www.courthousenews.com/boris-johnsons-talk-of-herd-immunity-raises-alarms/?amp

    Read the articles carefully. They were about the rejection of herd immunity.

    You didn't read them carefully enough:
    “Well, herd immunity is the situation where you get so many people in the population to develop an immunity to a disease that there is no opportunity for the disease to actually become established and spread to lots of people,” said Nick Phin, deputy director of the National Infection Service.

    “Normally we do that with a vaccine,” he said. “You can do that naturally, of course, if a disease that’s not been introduced before affects a large number of people, and that’s really how herd immunity in the U.K. would develop.”

    This is also why the government didn't pursue test and trace with as much alacrity as elsewhere.

    What you posted is a 'discussion' not a policy.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    They are about the eventual rejection of herd immunity. The plan was to 'let the virus rip' - until they were finally convinced by the evidence as to just how many people that would kill.

    We had already lost weeks at that point, and baked in tens of thousands of deaths. Then the government repeated the same mistake in September, and again in December. That's how we went from '20,000 dead would be a good result' to 150,000 dead.

    If this was a plan, it was a plan that was never implimented or announced
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    They are about the eventual rejection of herd immunity. The plan was to 'let the virus rip' - until they were finally convinced by the evidence as to just how many people that would kill.

    We had already lost weeks at that point, and baked in tens of thousands of deaths. Then the government repeated the same mistake in September, and again in December. That's how we went from '20,000 dead would be a good result' to 150,000 dead.

    If this was a plan, it was a plan that was never implimented or announced

    Apart from when it was announced. It wasn't implemented because mass graves aren't a good look for any government, even one as venal and self-serving as this one. But by the time they changed their minds, they'd already baked in tens of thousands of deaths.

    Honestly, I'm just repeating myself here, and so are you, Telford. The facts are literally there for you to see, and I don't know, maybe you don't want to believe that any government, especially a UK one could have been so wildly wrong about something so important, and only abandoned their reckless and lethal plan when told bluntly that they were going to kill a significant proportion of the population with it.

    I suppose, thank God they didn't plough on with it, that voices of sanity finally prevailed. But that doesn't give any credit to those in charge of making policy - they were late to the first lockdown (and the subsequent ones), and they did a whole slew of things incredibly badly, and they, through action and inaction, killed a lot of people who ought to be alive today. Literally the only thing that has saved us are the vaccines - otherwise we'd be stacking the corpses up like cordwood at the moment.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    They are about the eventual rejection of herd immunity. The plan was to 'let the virus rip' - until they were finally convinced by the evidence as to just how many people that would kill.

    We had already lost weeks at that point, and baked in tens of thousands of deaths. Then the government repeated the same mistake in September, and again in December. That's how we went from '20,000 dead would be a good result' to 150,000 dead.

    If this was a plan, it was a plan that was never implimented or announced

    Apart from when it was announced. It wasn't implemented because mass graves aren't a good look for any government, even one as venal and self-serving as this one. But by the time they changed their minds, they'd already baked in tens of thousands of deaths.

    Honestly, I'm just repeating myself here, and so are you, Telford. The facts are literally there for you to see, and I don't know, maybe you don't want to believe that any government, especially a UK one could have been so wildly wrong about something so important, and only abandoned their reckless and lethal plan when told bluntly that they were going to kill a significant proportion of the population with it.

    I suppose, thank God they didn't plough on with it, that voices of sanity finally prevailed. But that doesn't give any credit to those in charge of making policy - they were late to the first lockdown (and the subsequent ones), and they did a whole slew of things incredibly badly, and they, through action and inaction, killed a lot of people who ought to be alive today. Literally the only thing that has saved us are the vaccines - otherwise we'd be stacking the corpses up like cordwood at the moment.

    Neither you or anyone else have convinced me that it was an official policy but to save repeating myself, this is my last word on the subject
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Sorry for the confusion. As far as I know if you want to Marry in an RC (and several other) Church you either have to have a civil ceremony, then a church one or have a registrar present at the service to take care of the legal side. My sister had a registrar present at her wedding

    Thanks for the clarification. The procedure you set out sounds very odd to me (and I imagine most not in the UK as well).
  • It was never announced as government policy because of the MO of Johnson to let ideas leak and then decide what to do based on whether the public would approve of it. The leaked concept created a big enough "are you f***ing insane?" from anyone with any basic understanding of epidemiology that the idea of developing herd-immunity was dropped very quickly, and the government got to work on a plan that wasn't going to kill half a million or more people. The resulting lockdown was late and had massive holes for the virus to flow through (international travel being one of them) but 150,000 dead is better than half a million ... though not as good as 50,000 would have been.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Sorry for the confusion. As far as I know if you want to Marry in an RC (and several other) Church you either have to have a civil ceremony, then a church one or have a registrar present at the service to take care of the legal side. My sister had a registrar present at her wedding

    Thanks for the clarification. The procedure you set out sounds very odd to me (and I imagine most not in the UK as well).
    Registrars will go to buildings registered for marriages to conduct or oversee weddings there. But the trustees or governing body of a registered building can appoint an ‘authorised person’ who is
    responsible for ensuring that the legal requirements of marriages solemnized in a registered building are met; this includes marriage preliminaries and the signing of the marriage schedule and the return of the marriage schedule to the local register office.
    As I understand it, this could be the priest/pastor/minister him/herself, but I think it is often a reliable member of the congregation with clear neat handwriting.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I knew it. The buggers did advocate herd immunity and have been trying to gaslight us: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/uk-backed-off-on-herd-immunity-to-beat-coronavirus-we-need-it

    I don't recall anyone coming on tv and telling us to go out and create herd immunity.

    No-one is claiming that. However, I do recall, and this article confirms, that there was at one point an intention to allow herd immunity to build up through infection of people at the time considered non-vulnerable. Since then the government has denied that was ever policy, which reminds me that Oceania is and always has been at war with Eastasia.

    So it was never an actual policy. It was merely a suggestion.

    Nope. It was official policy of HM Government as far as we can tell from the available information. The fact that they never admitted as much (although they came quite close) doesn't change that fact.

    AFZ

    I see. An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge

    Apart from the multiple government statements that alluded to it, apart from the way the government behaved. (See @Chrisstiles comment above).

    Nope, no evidence at all....

    AFZ

    I agree with your last statement

    (sigh)

    I know that sarcasm can be tricky on line, but still.

    This is the same nonsense as when you tried to explain that Windrush wasn't the government's fault because they never explicitly said they wanted to deport people or deny basic rights to people who had a absolute right to reside in the UK. Let's be clear, Cameron and May were specifically warned that these would be the consequences of their planned policy and they did it anyway.

    Cummings stated that 'herd immunity' or rather a misunderstanding of the concept, was government policy back then. This is 100% consistent with the government's actions and statements at the time.

    You got anything close to an argument yet?

    AFZ

    (sigh) I see you now believe everything said my Mr Cummings and I have not been shown any written evidence that Herd Immunity was a government policy.

    Wow. Have you read ANY of the previous page or so?

    I certainly have. What's your point ?

    Your post suggests no understanding of what others have written so I was assuming you hadn't read it. It was the kinder way to understand your post.

    My post indicated that I have not seen any evidence of Government Herd Immunity policy.

    Ahem.

    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    An official policy that they never bothered to tell us about and you have no evidence for apart from the words of someone seeking his revenge
    Your memory is faulty, and you shouldn't be pontificating with such confidence.
    We can remember back to March last year you know.
    Chris Whitty in March 2020 and other government sources.
    See in particular this quote later down, which is describing a herd immunity strategy in all but name:
    The government is concerned that if not enough people catch the virus now, it will re-emerge in the winter, when the NHS is already overstretched.

    Didn't read or didn't understand?

    This could help too: https://www.courthousenews.com/boris-johnsons-talk-of-herd-immunity-raises-alarms/?amp

    Read the articles carefully. They were about the rejection of herd immunity.

    You didn't read them carefully enough:
    “Well, herd immunity is the situation where you get so many people in the population to develop an immunity to a disease that there is no opportunity for the disease to actually become established and spread to lots of people,” said Nick Phin, deputy director of the National Infection Service.

    “Normally we do that with a vaccine,” he said. “You can do that naturally, of course, if a disease that’s not been introduced before affects a large number of people, and that’s really how herd immunity in the U.K. would develop.”

    This is also why the government didn't pursue test and trace with as much alacrity as elsewhere.

    What you posted is a 'discussion' not a policy.

    No. It's 'descriptive'.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    BroJames - a "registered place" adds to the oddities. What about a wedding at a home, a beach, a park, or any other place?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited June 2
    Hugal wrote: »
    Sorry for the confusion. As far as I know if you want to Marry in an RC (and several other) Church you either have to have a civil ceremony, then a church one or have a registrar present at the service to take care of the legal side. My sister had a registrar present at her wedding
    Not quite. The law is different depending on which part of the UK you are in. I can't speak for any of the other parts of the UK but as far as England is concerned, having two ceremonies on the continental model is almost unknown.

    There are two different requirements. First, the wedding must take place in an authorised place. Second, although it is the couple who are marrying each other, the ceremony must be celebrated by or in the presence of an authorised person.

    Historically, authorised place meant a CofE parish church, a registrar's office or an authorised religious building (e.g. RC church, Methodist chapel etc). Recently, local authorities have also been able to authorise hotels etc as wedding venues. The two archbishops can also issue licences for weddings to take place in religious buildings that aren't parish churches.

    This means @Gee D that weddings can't take place out of doors or in peoples' homes. Why is this an oddity?

    A civil wedding, whether in a registrar's office or an hotel must not contain religious elements.

    Authorised person means, in effect, a registrar, a CofE ordained and licensed clergy person or a non-CofE priest or minister who has been appointed by the registrar as a deputy registrar. At the moment civil celebrants can't be authorised. There's been quite a lot of grumbling from humanists about this.

    So for a wedding in an hotel or the chapel of a denomination that doesn't have clergy, a registrar has to attend.

    For a CofE wedding to be valid, the ceremony must comply with what is liturgically required, i.e 1662 BCP or Common Worship. Where Common Worship provides options, those must be correctly followed. So people can't rewrite their own vows.


    In the last month the rules on how weddings are certificated have all changed and nobody has got the hang of them yet. The changes appear to be largely driven by the Home Office's paranoia about making sure nasty foreigners can't use marriage to get into the country. Quite why, or whether, anyone in their right mind would want to get into the malevolent and unfriendly place the UK has become since Brexit is something that nobody even seems to ask, yet alone answer.


  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    I feel that here's a good place to share this joke:

    Boris Johnson was visiting a remote village in Cornwall. He asked the residents if there was anything they needed.
    "Well there are two things we need" said one resident.
    "OK," said Boris, "what do you need?"
    "Firstly, we have a heathcentre but no doctor," he said.
    "Right oh roger," replied the Prime Minister, pulling out his mobile phone. After a brief call, he turned back to the residents and said "Bish, bash, bosh, I have sorted that for you, go me! What's the second thing?"
    "Well, the second thing is that we have no mobile phone signal..."

    AFZ
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I feel that here's a good place to share this joke:

    Boris Johnson was visiting a remote village in Cornwall. He asked the residents if there was anything they needed.
    "Well there are two things we need" said one resident.
    "OK," said Boris, "what do you need?"
    "Firstly, we have a heathcentre but no doctor," he said.
    "Right oh roger," replied the Prime Minister, pulling out his mobile phone. After a brief call, he turned back to the residents and said "Bish, bash, bosh, I have sorted that for you, go me! What's the second thing?"
    "Well, the second thing is that we have no mobile phone signal..."

    AFZ

    Excellent. Thanks for that.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    AFZ - I like that, both cynical and accurate.

    (not to mention depressing)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    This means @Gee D that weddings can't take place out of doors or in peoples' homes. Why is this an oddity?

    Because so few weddings here are carried out in churches or registry offices. Only about 20% of marriages are conducted by clergy of any description and so the number of church weddings is very limited. 80% are conducted by civil celebrants in parks, at beaches, cliff tops, home gardens - the list is endless. Many religious services are not conducted in churches either; friends have had 3 of their children marry, all religious services and none in a church. All that matters is that the service is conducted by an authorised celebrant (almost all clergy are authorised, there may be some of unusual religious groups that are not, otherwise a person who has undergone a training course) - and that the necessary paperwork gets back to the registry office in due course. The location is irrelevant.
  • But, that way leads to vicars joining in a sky dive to conduct the service on the way down. Which is only slightly less ridiculous than Johnson promising to be faithful.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Very, very few sky-dives probably*, but a lot in parks (one near us is a very popular location for the wedding and subsequent reception), beaches, scenic lookouts. None underwater, it would be difficult to exchange the promises in a way that was audible to the celebrant.

    *The mind boggles at the thought of a properly vested minister diving out of a plane with or without a parachute.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    Of course what @Gee D describes is also the Scottish situation, where ministers may take a service more or less anywhere (though the sensible ones would avoid skydives or similar).
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thank you for that bit of information - I thought it was probably the case.
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Of course what @Gee D describes is also the Scottish situation, where ministers may take a service more or less anywhere (though the sensible ones would avoid skydives or similar).
    I don't recall a lot of weddings in parks with folks walking the dog and kids drinking Bucky hanging around. Maybe that's just climate, and that no one sensible would plan for a wedding out of doors in Scotland.
  • kingsfoldkingsfold Shipmate
    Cathscats wrote: »
    Of course what @Gee D describes is also the Scottish situation, where ministers may take a service more or less anywhere (though the sensible ones would avoid skydives or similar).

    I thought I half-remembered someone saying something about Episcopal Church weddings having to be in a church, so I've just checked the Canons....

    Canon 31 is Of the Solemnisation of Matrimony, and point 5 reads "The solemnisation of Marriage shall take place in Church except with the written sanction
    of the Bishop."

    So it would seem that if you want the Episcopal Church to marry you, you have to get written permission from the Bishop for it to be anywhere other than in a church.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Similar provision in Sydney (haven't checked other dioceses) but the approval seems to be given very readily. And of course there are very few religious marriages and an even smaller number of Anglican services.
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Of course what @Gee D describes is also the Scottish situation, where ministers may take a service more or less anywhere (though the sensible ones would avoid skydives or similar).
    I don't recall a lot of weddings in parks with folks walking the dog and kids drinking Bucky hanging around. Maybe that's just climate, and that no one sensible would plan for a wedding out of doors in Scotland.

    Beach weddings are common here with the church or community hall as backup if (ok when) the weather turns.
Sign In or Register to comment.