Tyke02

If what you have is an AV600 powerline extender it doesn't make a wifi connection with the router, but connects via house wiring. For that to happen there needs to be a second item plugged in to mains near the router, and connected to the router by a network cable. If so, when the router was changed it might be that either the network cable wasn't connected to the new router, or the plug in adapter isn't powered up, or it needs to be reset . Pictures of what to look for to check this out here: https://www.tp-link.com/uk/home-networking/powerline/tl-wpa4220-kit/

I don't think it's possible to strictly define what constitutes abuse, as it is so dependent on context. The "victim" will have a view on whether they have been abused, but that's not the end of the story, there would be subsequent checks and balances. Perhaps zero tolerance here means that JL will by default support their staff in pursuing any such complaints. That would presumably be by way of a complaint to the police, who will take a view on whether they agree, given the specific context of what was said and how it was put across. If they do agree then they would submit the case to CPS for a similar decision on whether they agree too and want to prosecute. If they do, it will then be a Magistrate or Judge and Jury who then get to evaluate and decide on whether what happened crossed the line. Then there's the appeals system...

True enough in 2016. Recent polls suggest that the majority are no longer supporters of the current government, and I doubt that the majority are followers of coronavirus conspiracies, which probably impacts the appeal of the channel to many.

Third paragraph. Given that Ofcom's investigation of Fox is the seventh that they have underway at the moment I think that ship may already have sailed. Given that it is staffed by a range of right wing , pro-government, pro-Brexit and covid conspiracist presenters I doubt there is much they can do that would appeal to those on the left.

You felt a line was crossed when a customer threatened to come round and lay you out, but didn't do it. However in the example I gave there was a telephone threat of violence coupled with a demonstration that they knew where to find him. If a verbal threat to you crosses a line, why do others need to take a beating before they can be concerned? Typical woke lefty broadcaster cancelling people. Oh, hang on a minute...

Here's an example of Wootton's comments on his show leading to cyber attacks, threatening phone calls and emails and a journalists windscreen apparently being smeared with blood. What is said on TV/online can have consequences. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/blood-smeared-on-windscreen-as-reporters-threatened-over-dan-wootton-investigation-135621431.html

This is also stated in exactly those words by Ofcom in the report that I referenced. They agree with that. The fact that you won't read published sources even when pointed out to you could seriously damage your credibility. If you had any. You mentioned that you had been afflicted in that way. Maybe you might heal if you found a way to get over your obsession.

Seems pretty clear that you didn't read either the definition I told you about or examples that you asked for. You may think of them as a woke QUANGO (how are you defining that by the way), but they are the Regulator tasked by Parliament to regulate this stuff, and have automony to fine transgressors up to £18 million for some offences, or withdraw permission to operate, so media organisations can't dismiss them as nothing to worry about. Sure there is going to be some subjectivity in interpretation, and they accept this and carry out large scale public surveys to give a view on the range of boundaries of acceptability as far as the general population are concerned. By the way those examples are only part of their role which also includes ensuring freedom of expression for minority and fringe views. You might need them some day. They say as an introduction to one of their latest reports: "At Ofcom, one of our primary responsibilities is to set and enforce rules for broadcast television and radio – to protect audiences from harmful and offensive content, while respecting rights to freedom of expression. Viewers and listeners are at the centre of what we do. For our rules to remain relevant and effective, it’s important that we listen and understand first-hand what people find offensive and how attitudes change over time. Since our last wave of similar research five years ago, it’s been fascinating to see how tastes and tolerances have shifted or, indeed, stayed the same." Despite your preferences, the only thing that tends to stay the same is that everything will, eventually, change.

Ofcom have a definition of hate speech in their broadcasting code, and have fined some broadcasting organisations and removed others licences on the basis of it, for example: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-ahlebait-tv-networks https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-up-and-coming-tv https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/updated-decision-and-surrender-ktv https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-link-fm https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-rinse-fm Some groups have used the same rules to lobby for Ofcom to take action on the basis that they think they have been broken, for example: https://www.thejc.com/news/news/mps-and-board-of-deputies-slam-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-on-gbnews-7034XOJGx29iU82NfNSPfq If you don't like their definition, I suggest that you take it up with them.

I agree, and that was how things were until recently, but the current government changed that.

My last dog used to howl only in response to ice cream vans that passed the house playing their jingle. A rescue, so who knows why.

I spoke to the landlord of my local pub about this because I wouldn't want him to lose money based on my payment preference, and he said he's not bothered as he pays 0.2% on card transactions versus 0,15% for paying in cash to bank, and it saves having cash on the premises overnight. Maybe you haven't got the best deal?

Belief in press reports without critical examination of the original sources is, as I said on this or another thread, unwise.

I was merely giving you the gift of publicly available data that you didn't seem able to find to save you making up your own for a change. As I said, there is a lot of information out there, just a shame you don't seem willing to go look for it and build your opinions off information rather than your preconceptions. Unlike you, I'm not arguing a particular position, but pointing out instances where your arguments don't work or aren't supported by the "evidence" you present. When your opinions are based on logic and evidence (and there's no contradictory data you're ignoring) I'll happily leave you to it. You need to do better if you want to be convincing, in the ways I have explained. If you don't want to be convincing, but just to scratch your obsessional itch, that seems like a waste of oxygen. By the way did you miss the part of the ONS link that said thinks you liked about 2020 that said the pandemic was no longer a factor in reduced GDP by Q1 2022.

Merely pointing out that you have to avoid a lot of available information to persist with your position that selectively quoted press reports and anecdotes are something to be relied upon. I think I've pointed this out before in various ways, and you've never addressed it.

This is what the ONS have to say about GDP changes from Q1 2020 to Q1 2022: "Isolating the economic impacts of Brexit is difficult because it has overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, global supply chain disruption and energy and food price shocks. The nationwide lockdown undertaken to protect the country from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented fall in UK GDP. Public health measures including social distancing, travel restrictions and closure of non-essential shops drove a 19.8% fall in GDP between April and June 2020. Household spending fell by over 20% over this period, the largest quarterly contraction on record, which was driven by falls in spending on restaurants, hotels, transport and recreation. The furlough scheme, affecting a total of 11.6 million jobs, significantly curbed the labour market impact, with the unemployment rate rising from 3.8% at the end of 2019 to 5.2% by the end of 2020. As restrictions were lifted GDP largely recovered by 17.6% in the third quarter of 2020 – between July and September. Household spending rose by 19.6% in the third quarter of 2020, with higher spending in restaurants, hotels and on transport. Despite a 1.2% drop in GDP over the first three months of 2021 with the emergence of the Delta variant and subsequent lockdown, the rest of the year saw incremental growth. Household spending rose once more in spring (8.5%) and summer (2.6%) 2021 – making a steady return to pre-coronavirus pandemic levels. GDP had returned to pre-coronavirus pandemic levels by the first quarter of 2022. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/gdpandeventsinhistoryhowthecovid19pandemicshockedtheukeconomy/2022-05-24#:~:text=The COVID-19 pandemic prompted,country reopened over the summer.

The things I was saying are based on facts and analysis documented at the time and now largely in the public domain. No need to reinvent history.

Everyone making predictions on what would happen was using a model. For some of them it involved transparent documentation about assumptions for the values of the many many variables that would affect the outcome, and evaluating collective risk, (because the outcomes would depend to a large degree on how many fell ill at the same time). For some others, their undocumented mental models seemed to be based only on what was consistent with their core beliefs at the start of the pandemic, and considered only individual risk, amongst other shortcomings.

There's a blog by someone from the ONS from October 2021 that explains the differences between the ONS numbers and the MHRA numbers: https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/10/04/how-many-people-have-died-as-a-result-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/ It sums up the situation with this: "The deaths registrations figures published by ONS show the official figures for when a death involved the COVID-19 vaccination, and when the vaccination was the underlying cause. This means it was recorded as such by a doctor or coroner. There is a time lag, for the reasons described here, so the most recent data relate to deaths registered up to the end of August 2021. This time lag should be borne in mind when using these figures. The Yellow Card Scheme data, by contrast, give an important early warning about possible deaths relating to COVID-19 vaccinations, and form a basis for further investigations. However, the numbers don’t show confirmed cases of deaths linked to the vaccines and should not be used for this purpose. Many of these deaths will actually have had other causes, which explains why these numbers are so much higher than the deaths registrations. The deaths registrations numbers are likely to rise, as numbers feed through following delays, but they can be expected to remain far lower than those shown in the Yellow Card data." MHRA say something similar in their reporting on the Yellow Card scheme: "The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

No, it isnt. The article is dated 27 October 2021, so about 18 months after the pandemic started.

Just like your view of your favourite subject might change if you exposed yourself to more authoritative information sources than the cherry picked headlines and soundbites that you repeatedly use. Go back and look at the previous replies to your laundry list and you'll see that your view on that does not seem to be the consensus view on this forum. If you want to change minds you need better arguments, and they need better supporting data than anecdotes or selectively quoted news items. For example, it's wise to find and read the peer reviewed scientific publications that is being reported on, to find out whether the reporter has understood it or is misrepresenting what it means, otherwise you are just wasting your time.

I thought your point was that people who don't have experience of a subject (parenthood) shouldn't express an opinion. Yet you express contrarian opinions on disease control without experience. This is another of your changes of subject to avoid admitting your epistemic arrogance. Your shopping list of grievances with "experts" has been answered many times, and a change of subject seems to be your "go to" response when faced with rebuttal.

It seems that you believe that when you have experience of a subject, that makes your opinions authoritative. When others have experienced another subject that you haven't (e.g. managing disease outbreaks) and you disagree with them, you still think your opinions are authoritative. Can you not see the problem there?

By that logic nobody should be commenting on Covid unless they have experience of managing infectious disease outbreaks.

The mail issued a retraction in 2011: "Now the Mail has admitted in its newly introduced 'clarifications and corrections' column: "Winterval was the collective name for a season of public events, both religious and secular, which took place in Birmingham in 1997 and 1998. We are happy to make clear that Winterval did not rename or replace Christmas." News of the Mail’s climbdown has been greeted with widespread jubilation in some quarters."