Best Of

Incredible really

Rachel Reeves was celebrating the renting law being expanded in her constituency, at the same time she was breaking that law with her own house👇

Claiming that she wasn’t aware of these laws is about as credible as her CV.

https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1983802829971100152?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.

Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.

Is that what they are saying ?
Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?

As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.

The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.

Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ?
If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.

I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.

But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.

One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.

LOL.

He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.

Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?

They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.

I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.

The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.

It’s not even about the money, for these people - in the sense of enjoying their ill-gotten gains. The money is simply a way of keeping score. And, it’s timeless.

The whole mentality of people who can never be satisfied, despite enjoying great wealth, status, and power, is fascinating. Alexander's generals could not be satisfied with ruling enormous territories and living in splendour, but squandered vast resources (and their own lives), trying to conquer the whole lot. Caesar and Octavian were simply the most successful of the multimillionaire aristocrats who pillaged the Mediterranean and Gaul, in order to be first man in Rome (and the vast majority ended up dying violently in the process). Even after Octavian won, his dynasty spent a century murdering each other, and potential rivals, before they died out (Nero murdered his mother, brother, and two wives).

So, a billionaire might be reclining on his yacht in Monaco harbour, a mistress young enough to be his granddaughter by his side, and then quite suddenly, someone sails into the harbour in an even bigger boat, and his enjoyment is destroyed, as he worries about the size of his ... yacht. What's a billion, when the other man has two billion? What's ten billion, when there are people with fortunes that exceed one hundred billion? Getting more money is just keeping score, at this point.

My guess is one of Trump's acolytes runs, not him, and then wins against a Democrat candidate that still doesn't get it.

Get what exactly?

Why they lost to Trump fair and square in 2024; it wasn't voter intimidation or ballot rigging that did it.

I don't doubt Trump will pull every lever he can to protect himself in office, or even try and find a way to stay in office, but it's much easier to deal with the fact he might be trying to stack the deck in his favour than engage with why they keep losing to him because that might require them to ask some very hard questions of themselves.

Control of social media outside of any spending limits was a serious factor in moving votes. Fair and square? Dunno. Maybe that is the new normal.

Elon Musk’s $44bn intervention definitely can’t be overlooked in the 2024 election result.

It meant that both parties’ activists had an online voice.

An equal voice? I'd dispute that.

Incredible really

Rachel Reeves was celebrating the renting law being expanded in her constituency, at the same time she was breaking that law with her own house👇

Claiming that she wasn’t aware of these laws is about as credible as her CV.

https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1983802829971100152?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.

Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.

Is that what they are saying ?
Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?

As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.

The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.

Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ?
If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.

Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.

My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.

Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.

How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.

Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.

My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.

The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.

Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.

The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.

Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.

So literal tons of bricks - nothing.
Council recycling boxes - massive fine

*obvious illegal operation

You don't need to swear

Yes, I do.

It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.

And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.

Incredible really

Rachel Reeves was celebrating the renting law being expanded in her constituency, at the same time she was breaking that law with her own house👇

Claiming that she wasn’t aware of these laws is about as credible as her CV.

https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1983802829971100152?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.

Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.

Is that what they are saying ?
Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?

As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.

The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.

Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ?
If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.

Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.

My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.

Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.

How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.

Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.

My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.

The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.

Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.

The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.

Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.

So literal tons of bricks - nothing.
Council recycling boxes - massive fine

*obvious illegal operation

As I wrote above/below in almost every case like this you’ll find the enforcement has been outsourced to a company that happily goes after the easy cases (the law abiding person who is naive enough to give their name and address when stopped in the street after they've poured 1/4 a cup of coffee down the drain) but knows that chasing a dodgy builder is a hiding to nothing that won’t result in a profitable payout.

They’re not interesting in doing the hard cases that keep the public realm clear of chancers, because those cost money.

That reminds me of that council that recently decided to crack down on dangerous cycling by banning bicycles from the town centre, with the threat of heavy fines. The result was that the nuisance cyclists carried on as before because they were too hard to catch, but the little old ladies slowly and carefully pedalling their way to the shops were stopped and made to pay up.