logo
logo
twitter facebook facebook
Mike Estes
twitter facebook facebook
Followers 70 Following 59
Mike Estes 2021-07-17
img
Last week a hotel in Laguna Hills canceled the event. On Friday, a convention center on Riverside followed suit. A venue in Anaheim did the same on Saturday.
collect
1
Mike Estes 2021-05-17
img
Joe Biden's Venmo friends list was found on display Friday. That's how the app is designed, keeping personal connections central.
collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-02-17
img
Here's TechRadar's definitive list of the best Ultrabooks
collect
0
Mike Estes 2020-10-05
img

Shirley Ballas has spoken of her fears that the trolling she receives on social media during every series of Strictly Come Dancing will be worse this year because of lockdown.

The BBC show’s head judge has been candid about her experiences with negative online comments since joining the panel in 2017. 

Speaking to the PA news agency, Shirley said she expected to receive more abuse because people were at home with little to do.

Shirley Ballas at the Strictly Come Dancing Launch at BBC Broadcasting House in London. (Photo by Keith Mayhew/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“Going into this next phase of Strictly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the trolling is 10 times worse,” she said.

“Because people are in lockdown, because we may go into a second lockdown and heaven help us if we do and people are sat at home with nothing more to do.”

She continued: “The first year it was very difficult, when people tell you ‘You’ve got a chest like a Seville orange that’s been eaten by a thousand slugs. Ugly bitch, die,’ and people doing coffins with your head on them.

“We (she and her mother) talked about whether I should continue, given the invasion of privacy, but my mother decided we needed to take everything with a sense of humour. So when they laugh at me or call me stupid or thick, I just have to let it go.”

However, Shirley admitted she could not bring herself not to follow social media.

“I read it and move on from it. Even If I don’t read it, there are plenty of people in my industry who will send it to me,” she added. 

Shirley with Craig Revel Horwood, Motsi Mabuse and Bruno Tonioli

Shirley is returning to Strictly Come Dancing for the new series later this month, alongside fellow judges Motsi Mabuse and Craig Revel Horwood

Bruno Tonioli will sit out the Saturday night live show as he is residing in the US amid the pandemic, but will give his verdict on each of the performances during the Sunday results show. 

It is just one of a number of changes to this year’s series, which is due to kick off on 17 October on BBC One. 

collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-07-14
img
Save $20 and upgrade the blade that matters most.
collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-04-01
img
Benjamin Hannam.

A serving Met Police officer has been found guilty of being a member of the banned neo-Nazi terrorist group National Action.

Benjamin Hannam, 22, of north London, was also convicted of lying on his application and vetting forms to join the Met and having terror documents detailing knife combat and making explosive devices.

On his application form he denied he was a member of National Action (NA) – an organisation similar to the BNP.

A jury had deliberated for more than 32 hours to find Hannam guilty on Thursday.

Hannam, who was suspended from duty in July, also pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited photograph of a child.

The extreme right-wing group NA, labelled “racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic” by the then home secretary Amber Rudd, was banned in December 2016 after a series of rallies and incidents, including praise of the murder of MP Jo Cox.

Founded in late 2013 by university students Alex Davies and Benjamin Raymond, it was based on neo-Nazi ideology and hatred of members of Jewish, gay and ethnic minority communities.

It targeted Britain’s disaffected male youth through slick online propaganda and drew heavily on the virulently racist rhetoric and symbols of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party.

Stunts by activists included the desecration of the statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square, placing a banana in his hand.

Propaganda videos of demonstrations across England and Scotland showed men in skull masks waving banners and making Nazi salutes.

Another member, Jack Renshaw, was jailed for life in 2019 for plotting to kill a Labour MP two years earlier.

After he was found guilty it was revealed he was also a convicted paedophile who had been jailed for 16 months in 2018 for grooming two underage boys online.

Other convicted National Action members include Adam Thomas, 22, and Claudia Patatas, 38, a “fanatical” neo-Nazi couple who named their baby son after Hitler.

Adam Thomas & Claudia Patatas holding a Swastika flag whilst holding their baby. October 15, 2018

Photographs showed Thomas cradling his newborn son while wearing the hooded white robes of a Ku Klux Klansman.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated. Follow HuffPost UK on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-01-05
img
Follow our guide as we explain how to watch Friends online and stream all 10 seasons and 236 episodes of the hit TV show from anywhere right now.
collect
0
Mike Estes 2020-10-04
img
Here's our pick of the horror-meister's tales that have worked best on the big screen, plus the films we'd like to see made.
collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-07-09
img
The law required businesses to publicly post  "policy" signs showing that they have trans-friendly bathrooms.
collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-03-02
img
Shopee is upping the ante in Brazil - its first market outside of Asia - at a time when competition at home is heating up.
collect
0
Mike Estes 2020-12-22
img
Christian Dior is sticking by Depp, but insiders wonder whether his career can survive, especially with another defamation suit against on the way.
collect
0
Mike Estes 2020-09-04
img

President Donald Trump, who has been criticised in the past for making disparaging remarks about veterans and military families, reportedly referred to American service members who’d died in World War I as “losers” and “suckers” in conversations with his staff.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, citing multiple anonymous sources who had firsthand knowledge of the conversations, reported Thursday on the president’s comments.

Associated Press reporter James LaPorta later corroborated Goldberg’s article, saying a senior Defense Department official had confirmed the information.

According to Goldberg, Trump uttered the belittling remarks about the American war dead while in France in 2018.

During that trip, the president nixed a planned visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery ― a World War I cemetery in Belleau, France, near the site of the Battle of Belleau Wood. Trump blamed rain for the cancellation at the time.

Goldberg said, however, that Trump had actually “rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become dishevelled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honour American war dead.”

Goldberg added:

In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.

Goldberg said later in the article that Trump had also referred separately to John McCain, the late senator and war veteran, as a “fucking loser”.

Trump has previously been criticised for denigrating McCain, who was held for 5½ years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 of McCain. “I like people who weren’t captured.”

White House spokesperson Alyssa Farah told HuffPost that Goldberg’s report was “false.”

“President Trump holds the military in the highest regard. He’s demonstrated his commitment to them at every turn: delivering on his promise to give our troops a much needed pay raise, increasing military spending, signing critical veterans reforms and supporting military spouses,” Farah said.

Trump himself later refuted Goldberg’s report, insisting that he’d never called McCain a “loser” and that he “never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES.”

HuffPost’s S.V. Dáte reported earlier this week that Trump had refused for two years to go to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to receive the bodies of US soldiers ― despite his insistence that he’s paid his respects to “many, many” US soldiers killed in the line of duty.

A former White House aide told Dáte that Trump had stopped going to the base after Bill Owens, the father of a slain Navy SEAL, refused to shake the president’s hand at a 2017 meeting and lambasted Trump for his incompetence. 

“He refused to go back for two years, he was so rattled,” the aide said of the president.

Trump never served in the military. He received five military deferments, including one for alleged bone spurs in his feet and four for education, during the Vietnam War.

 

collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-06-09
The name “Fanhouse” on a tie-dye background. The H is shaped like a house.
The logo for Fanhouse, a platform that lets creators charge for access to a private social feed. | Image: Fanhouse

Apple is clashing with the platform Fanhouse over whether it gets to take a cut of in-app payments to creators. The incident underscores just how little Apple understands about the creator economy, with the likely outcome being less money in creators’ pockets — and more money for one of the world’s most profitable corporations.

Founders of Fanhouse — which is basically OnlyFans without the nudity — say the platform will be kicked out of the App Store in August if it doesn’t start forking over 30 percent of the fees people pay creators when purchases are made through the iPhone app. One of Fanhouse’s creators, the streamer Breadwitchery, says that cut would mean losing two months of rent from her earnings to date. The company doesn’t have...

Continue reading…

collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-03-01
img
Bumble works the same for men and women, except that men aren't allowed to send the first message to a woman they've matched with.
collect
0
Mike Estes 2020-10-22
img
A new three-tier system of alert levels for England has been implemented following rising coronavirus cases and hospital admissions.

This was the week when things fell apart. Rumblings of discontent about the government’s handling of the pandemic turned into open revolt as the Northern mayors – particularly Andy Burnham of Manchester – stood up and refused to accept proposals to place them at the highest level of the new three-tier system of Covid restrictions.

Why? At first glance it seems eminently sensible that different areas of the country with different levels of infection should be subject to different measures.

Why close the pubs in Lowestoft (where the case rate per 100,000 is under 50) because of the problems in Liverpool (where the rate is pushing 600)?

Indeed, the general idea of local tiers is not in itself a bad one. However, we are not dealing with generalities.

Somehow the tier system has managed to be even more unclear and generated a greater sense of inequity (and hence resistance) than before.

Rather, we are faced with an acute crisis and we must consider whether the specific tier system devised by the UK government makes sense and whether it makes sense to impose it at this specific time. The answer to both questions is a resounding no.

Let’s start by looking at the details of the present system. It has three core problems. 

First, a central justification for replacing the present hodge-podge of restrictions across the country with three tiers was to create clarity and a sense of equity.

No-one – not even the prime minister – could remember who was allowed to do what and where, and there was a growing suspicion that some areas (the South) were being treated better than others (the North).

In principle, a tier system would overcome that by creating a simple and transparent system where it was clear that the same rules applied to everyone. 

But that is dependent upon there being clear, health-based criteria for moving from one tier to the next, along with consistent restrictions within each tier.

But in the event, the basis for deciding which tier you were in was far from clear and seemed dependent on political horse trading. Equally, the restrictions in a given tier were far from consistent, varied from area to area, and again seemed more a matter of politics than public health. Somehow the tier system managed to be even more unclear and generated a greater sense of inequity (and hence resistance) than before.

Even if an effective local system might have been sufficient at some point, that point is now well past.

Second, the notion of tiers is framed in an entirely negative way. It is all about the restrictions imposed on people – what they can’t do. This is encapsulated in the language of lockdown – a term we associated with prisons, with misbehaviour and with punishment.

But infections are a function of exposure to the virus, and exposure is greater among those who are poorer and more vulnerable: they are more likely to have to go to work, more likely to use public transport, more likely to live in crowded housing.

That is why the poorest areas of the country are four times more likely to be in “lockdown”. The reality is that infection reflects deprivation and the response should be greater support: support in terms of information, of testing facilities and, of course, financial compensation to workers and local businesses who are affected by the measurers necessary to combat the virus.

That was the core of Andy Burnham’s concerns. On October 20, he tweeted: “I have fought for the ability to support low-paid people and businesses who will be most harmed by Tier 3 closures”.

Had the government framed the tier system in terms of support and provided adequate funding, the disputes with the localities would not have happened.

Third, the measures in the tiers – even at the highest level of alert – were simply inadequate. On September 21, the government scientific advisory group SAGE met to consider the measures necessary to halt the start of a rise in infections.

What they proposed went far further than anything the government is introducing: ensuring all but essential workers stay at home, closing all bars and restaurants, stopping contact between households in the home, moving all university teaching online where possible. On that day, new infections were at about 4,500 per day. Now they are about 20,000, some five times higher. If anything, even more would need to be done to bring things back under control. The government is doing far less.

One might fairly retort that this is all very well, but would people actually accept such severe measures when many are already objecting to milder measures?

But the objections are less to the imposition of restrictions than cynicism about measures, which people don’t believe will work and hence are not worth the sacrifice. This is backed up by recent research showing that perceived effectiveness is critical to adherence.

What we have at the moment is the worst of all worlds: a fudge which has resulted in measures that do enough harm to damage livelihoods but are not effective enough to control the virus and save lives. People showed clearly in spring that they will make major sacrifices if they can see the point. What they won’t do is to make sacrifices just for the sake of it.

So, the local tier system we have ruins a good idea through botched and half-hearted implementation. It would not be fit for purpose at any time. But it is especially inadequate right now.

You don’t wait until your house is burning down before you call the Fire Brigade.

The SAGE recommendations of September 21 weren’t just about what measures should be applied, but where they should be applied. They called for a national circuit breaker not just local action. And they called for it as the only way of bringing infections down to manageable levels across the country. The rationale for this position has only become clearer over time.

It may be true that areas like Liverpool have far higher infection rates than places like Lowestoft. But infections are rising in every region of England, as are hospitalisations and deaths.

It may be true that some areas have broken out into a blaze while others are just smouldering. But you don’t wait until your house is burning down before you call the Fire Brigade. Indeed, it makes far more sense to act early before the damage is too great. The longer you leave things, the more effort is needed to get things back under control, and the more is lost along the way. 

Even if an effective local system might have been sufficient at some point, that point is now well past. Each day now, indecision and fudge is costing lives.

Remember the fateful week of 16-2March when the government delayed going into a lockdown – a delay which probably inflated the deaths by many thousands. We must not repeat that mistake. 

Moreover, when the circuit breaker has done its job, when infections are brought down and restrictions are lifted, we must not repeat the mistakes of June when we failed to put in place measures that would suppress the virus and stop yet another set of restrictions being needed.

Above all, we must demonstrate that the sacrifices we are asking for will not be wasted. 

Stephen Reicher is Wardlaw Professor of Psychology at the University of St. Andrews and member of Independent SAGE.

collect
0
Mike Estes 2020-08-22
img

Former Red Hot Chilli Peppers guitarist Jack Sherman has died at the age of 64. 

The band confirmed news of his death in a post on their official Instagram account on Friday night. 

Jack Sherman pictured in 1998

It read: “We of the RHCP family would like to wish Jack Sherman smooth sailing into the worlds beyond, for he has passed.

“He was a unique dude and we thank him for all times good, bad and in between. 

“Peace on the boogie platform.”

Jack joined the Chili Peppers in December 1983, replacing original guitarist and founding member, Hillel Slovak.

He played on the band’s self-titled debut album, which was released in 1984, and co-wrote much of their second album Freaky Styley. He also performed with them on their first tour of the US. 

Hillel later returned to replace Jack when he left the group in 1984.  

He went on to record with artists including Bob Dylan, George Clinton and Bill Madden. 

Jack previously spoke of his disappointment at being excluded when the Red Hot Chilli Peppers were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2012. 

Neither he and former guitarist Dave Navarro were inducted, which the Hall claimed was because only original members, current members and those who played on multiple albums were eligible.

Jack said at the time: “It’s really painful to see all this celebrating going on and be excluded... I’m being dishonoured, and it sucks.”

collect
0
Mike Estes 2021-07-17
img
Last week a hotel in Laguna Hills canceled the event. On Friday, a convention center on Riverside followed suit. A venue in Anaheim did the same on Saturday.
Mike Estes 2021-07-09
img
The law required businesses to publicly post  "policy" signs showing that they have trans-friendly bathrooms.
Mike Estes 2021-05-17
img
Joe Biden's Venmo friends list was found on display Friday. That's how the app is designed, keeping personal connections central.
Mike Estes 2021-03-02
img
Shopee is upping the ante in Brazil - its first market outside of Asia - at a time when competition at home is heating up.
Mike Estes 2021-02-17
img
Here's TechRadar's definitive list of the best Ultrabooks
Mike Estes 2020-12-22
img
Christian Dior is sticking by Depp, but insiders wonder whether his career can survive, especially with another defamation suit against on the way.
Mike Estes 2020-10-05
img

Shirley Ballas has spoken of her fears that the trolling she receives on social media during every series of Strictly Come Dancing will be worse this year because of lockdown.

The BBC show’s head judge has been candid about her experiences with negative online comments since joining the panel in 2017. 

Speaking to the PA news agency, Shirley said she expected to receive more abuse because people were at home with little to do.

Shirley Ballas at the Strictly Come Dancing Launch at BBC Broadcasting House in London. (Photo by Keith Mayhew/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“Going into this next phase of Strictly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the trolling is 10 times worse,” she said.

“Because people are in lockdown, because we may go into a second lockdown and heaven help us if we do and people are sat at home with nothing more to do.”

She continued: “The first year it was very difficult, when people tell you ‘You’ve got a chest like a Seville orange that’s been eaten by a thousand slugs. Ugly bitch, die,’ and people doing coffins with your head on them.

“We (she and her mother) talked about whether I should continue, given the invasion of privacy, but my mother decided we needed to take everything with a sense of humour. So when they laugh at me or call me stupid or thick, I just have to let it go.”

However, Shirley admitted she could not bring herself not to follow social media.

“I read it and move on from it. Even If I don’t read it, there are plenty of people in my industry who will send it to me,” she added. 

Shirley with Craig Revel Horwood, Motsi Mabuse and Bruno Tonioli

Shirley is returning to Strictly Come Dancing for the new series later this month, alongside fellow judges Motsi Mabuse and Craig Revel Horwood

Bruno Tonioli will sit out the Saturday night live show as he is residing in the US amid the pandemic, but will give his verdict on each of the performances during the Sunday results show. 

It is just one of a number of changes to this year’s series, which is due to kick off on 17 October on BBC One. 

Mike Estes 2020-09-04
img

President Donald Trump, who has been criticised in the past for making disparaging remarks about veterans and military families, reportedly referred to American service members who’d died in World War I as “losers” and “suckers” in conversations with his staff.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, citing multiple anonymous sources who had firsthand knowledge of the conversations, reported Thursday on the president’s comments.

Associated Press reporter James LaPorta later corroborated Goldberg’s article, saying a senior Defense Department official had confirmed the information.

According to Goldberg, Trump uttered the belittling remarks about the American war dead while in France in 2018.

During that trip, the president nixed a planned visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery ― a World War I cemetery in Belleau, France, near the site of the Battle of Belleau Wood. Trump blamed rain for the cancellation at the time.

Goldberg said, however, that Trump had actually “rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become dishevelled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honour American war dead.”

Goldberg added:

In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.

Goldberg said later in the article that Trump had also referred separately to John McCain, the late senator and war veteran, as a “fucking loser”.

Trump has previously been criticised for denigrating McCain, who was held for 5½ years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 of McCain. “I like people who weren’t captured.”

White House spokesperson Alyssa Farah told HuffPost that Goldberg’s report was “false.”

“President Trump holds the military in the highest regard. He’s demonstrated his commitment to them at every turn: delivering on his promise to give our troops a much needed pay raise, increasing military spending, signing critical veterans reforms and supporting military spouses,” Farah said.

Trump himself later refuted Goldberg’s report, insisting that he’d never called McCain a “loser” and that he “never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES.”

HuffPost’s S.V. Dáte reported earlier this week that Trump had refused for two years to go to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to receive the bodies of US soldiers ― despite his insistence that he’s paid his respects to “many, many” US soldiers killed in the line of duty.

A former White House aide told Dáte that Trump had stopped going to the base after Bill Owens, the father of a slain Navy SEAL, refused to shake the president’s hand at a 2017 meeting and lambasted Trump for his incompetence. 

“He refused to go back for two years, he was so rattled,” the aide said of the president.

Trump never served in the military. He received five military deferments, including one for alleged bone spurs in his feet and four for education, during the Vietnam War.

 

Mike Estes 2021-07-14
img
Save $20 and upgrade the blade that matters most.
Mike Estes 2021-06-09
The name “Fanhouse” on a tie-dye background. The H is shaped like a house.
The logo for Fanhouse, a platform that lets creators charge for access to a private social feed. | Image: Fanhouse

Apple is clashing with the platform Fanhouse over whether it gets to take a cut of in-app payments to creators. The incident underscores just how little Apple understands about the creator economy, with the likely outcome being less money in creators’ pockets — and more money for one of the world’s most profitable corporations.

Founders of Fanhouse — which is basically OnlyFans without the nudity — say the platform will be kicked out of the App Store in August if it doesn’t start forking over 30 percent of the fees people pay creators when purchases are made through the iPhone app. One of Fanhouse’s creators, the streamer Breadwitchery, says that cut would mean losing two months of rent from her earnings to date. The company doesn’t have...

Continue reading…

Mike Estes 2021-04-01
img
Benjamin Hannam.

A serving Met Police officer has been found guilty of being a member of the banned neo-Nazi terrorist group National Action.

Benjamin Hannam, 22, of north London, was also convicted of lying on his application and vetting forms to join the Met and having terror documents detailing knife combat and making explosive devices.

On his application form he denied he was a member of National Action (NA) – an organisation similar to the BNP.

A jury had deliberated for more than 32 hours to find Hannam guilty on Thursday.

Hannam, who was suspended from duty in July, also pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited photograph of a child.

The extreme right-wing group NA, labelled “racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic” by the then home secretary Amber Rudd, was banned in December 2016 after a series of rallies and incidents, including praise of the murder of MP Jo Cox.

Founded in late 2013 by university students Alex Davies and Benjamin Raymond, it was based on neo-Nazi ideology and hatred of members of Jewish, gay and ethnic minority communities.

It targeted Britain’s disaffected male youth through slick online propaganda and drew heavily on the virulently racist rhetoric and symbols of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party.

Stunts by activists included the desecration of the statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square, placing a banana in his hand.

Propaganda videos of demonstrations across England and Scotland showed men in skull masks waving banners and making Nazi salutes.

Another member, Jack Renshaw, was jailed for life in 2019 for plotting to kill a Labour MP two years earlier.

After he was found guilty it was revealed he was also a convicted paedophile who had been jailed for 16 months in 2018 for grooming two underage boys online.

Other convicted National Action members include Adam Thomas, 22, and Claudia Patatas, 38, a “fanatical” neo-Nazi couple who named their baby son after Hitler.

Adam Thomas & Claudia Patatas holding a Swastika flag whilst holding their baby. October 15, 2018

Photographs showed Thomas cradling his newborn son while wearing the hooded white robes of a Ku Klux Klansman.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated. Follow HuffPost UK on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Mike Estes 2021-03-01
img
Bumble works the same for men and women, except that men aren't allowed to send the first message to a woman they've matched with.
Mike Estes 2021-01-05
img
Follow our guide as we explain how to watch Friends online and stream all 10 seasons and 236 episodes of the hit TV show from anywhere right now.
Mike Estes 2020-10-22
img
A new three-tier system of alert levels for England has been implemented following rising coronavirus cases and hospital admissions.

This was the week when things fell apart. Rumblings of discontent about the government’s handling of the pandemic turned into open revolt as the Northern mayors – particularly Andy Burnham of Manchester – stood up and refused to accept proposals to place them at the highest level of the new three-tier system of Covid restrictions.

Why? At first glance it seems eminently sensible that different areas of the country with different levels of infection should be subject to different measures.

Why close the pubs in Lowestoft (where the case rate per 100,000 is under 50) because of the problems in Liverpool (where the rate is pushing 600)?

Indeed, the general idea of local tiers is not in itself a bad one. However, we are not dealing with generalities.

Somehow the tier system has managed to be even more unclear and generated a greater sense of inequity (and hence resistance) than before.

Rather, we are faced with an acute crisis and we must consider whether the specific tier system devised by the UK government makes sense and whether it makes sense to impose it at this specific time. The answer to both questions is a resounding no.

Let’s start by looking at the details of the present system. It has three core problems. 

First, a central justification for replacing the present hodge-podge of restrictions across the country with three tiers was to create clarity and a sense of equity.

No-one – not even the prime minister – could remember who was allowed to do what and where, and there was a growing suspicion that some areas (the South) were being treated better than others (the North).

In principle, a tier system would overcome that by creating a simple and transparent system where it was clear that the same rules applied to everyone. 

But that is dependent upon there being clear, health-based criteria for moving from one tier to the next, along with consistent restrictions within each tier.

But in the event, the basis for deciding which tier you were in was far from clear and seemed dependent on political horse trading. Equally, the restrictions in a given tier were far from consistent, varied from area to area, and again seemed more a matter of politics than public health. Somehow the tier system managed to be even more unclear and generated a greater sense of inequity (and hence resistance) than before.

Even if an effective local system might have been sufficient at some point, that point is now well past.

Second, the notion of tiers is framed in an entirely negative way. It is all about the restrictions imposed on people – what they can’t do. This is encapsulated in the language of lockdown – a term we associated with prisons, with misbehaviour and with punishment.

But infections are a function of exposure to the virus, and exposure is greater among those who are poorer and more vulnerable: they are more likely to have to go to work, more likely to use public transport, more likely to live in crowded housing.

That is why the poorest areas of the country are four times more likely to be in “lockdown”. The reality is that infection reflects deprivation and the response should be greater support: support in terms of information, of testing facilities and, of course, financial compensation to workers and local businesses who are affected by the measurers necessary to combat the virus.

That was the core of Andy Burnham’s concerns. On October 20, he tweeted: “I have fought for the ability to support low-paid people and businesses who will be most harmed by Tier 3 closures”.

Had the government framed the tier system in terms of support and provided adequate funding, the disputes with the localities would not have happened.

Third, the measures in the tiers – even at the highest level of alert – were simply inadequate. On September 21, the government scientific advisory group SAGE met to consider the measures necessary to halt the start of a rise in infections.

What they proposed went far further than anything the government is introducing: ensuring all but essential workers stay at home, closing all bars and restaurants, stopping contact between households in the home, moving all university teaching online where possible. On that day, new infections were at about 4,500 per day. Now they are about 20,000, some five times higher. If anything, even more would need to be done to bring things back under control. The government is doing far less.

One might fairly retort that this is all very well, but would people actually accept such severe measures when many are already objecting to milder measures?

But the objections are less to the imposition of restrictions than cynicism about measures, which people don’t believe will work and hence are not worth the sacrifice. This is backed up by recent research showing that perceived effectiveness is critical to adherence.

What we have at the moment is the worst of all worlds: a fudge which has resulted in measures that do enough harm to damage livelihoods but are not effective enough to control the virus and save lives. People showed clearly in spring that they will make major sacrifices if they can see the point. What they won’t do is to make sacrifices just for the sake of it.

So, the local tier system we have ruins a good idea through botched and half-hearted implementation. It would not be fit for purpose at any time. But it is especially inadequate right now.

You don’t wait until your house is burning down before you call the Fire Brigade.

The SAGE recommendations of September 21 weren’t just about what measures should be applied, but where they should be applied. They called for a national circuit breaker not just local action. And they called for it as the only way of bringing infections down to manageable levels across the country. The rationale for this position has only become clearer over time.

It may be true that areas like Liverpool have far higher infection rates than places like Lowestoft. But infections are rising in every region of England, as are hospitalisations and deaths.

It may be true that some areas have broken out into a blaze while others are just smouldering. But you don’t wait until your house is burning down before you call the Fire Brigade. Indeed, it makes far more sense to act early before the damage is too great. The longer you leave things, the more effort is needed to get things back under control, and the more is lost along the way. 

Even if an effective local system might have been sufficient at some point, that point is now well past. Each day now, indecision and fudge is costing lives.

Remember the fateful week of 16-2March when the government delayed going into a lockdown – a delay which probably inflated the deaths by many thousands. We must not repeat that mistake. 

Moreover, when the circuit breaker has done its job, when infections are brought down and restrictions are lifted, we must not repeat the mistakes of June when we failed to put in place measures that would suppress the virus and stop yet another set of restrictions being needed.

Above all, we must demonstrate that the sacrifices we are asking for will not be wasted. 

Stephen Reicher is Wardlaw Professor of Psychology at the University of St. Andrews and member of Independent SAGE.

Mike Estes 2020-10-04
img
Here's our pick of the horror-meister's tales that have worked best on the big screen, plus the films we'd like to see made.
Mike Estes 2020-08-22
img

Former Red Hot Chilli Peppers guitarist Jack Sherman has died at the age of 64. 

The band confirmed news of his death in a post on their official Instagram account on Friday night. 

Jack Sherman pictured in 1998

It read: “We of the RHCP family would like to wish Jack Sherman smooth sailing into the worlds beyond, for he has passed.

“He was a unique dude and we thank him for all times good, bad and in between. 

“Peace on the boogie platform.”

Jack joined the Chili Peppers in December 1983, replacing original guitarist and founding member, Hillel Slovak.

He played on the band’s self-titled debut album, which was released in 1984, and co-wrote much of their second album Freaky Styley. He also performed with them on their first tour of the US. 

Hillel later returned to replace Jack when he left the group in 1984.  

He went on to record with artists including Bob Dylan, George Clinton and Bill Madden. 

Jack previously spoke of his disappointment at being excluded when the Red Hot Chilli Peppers were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2012. 

Neither he and former guitarist Dave Navarro were inducted, which the Hall claimed was because only original members, current members and those who played on multiple albums were eligible.

Jack said at the time: “It’s really painful to see all this celebrating going on and be excluded... I’m being dishonoured, and it sucks.”