Best Of

Morning all

I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.

There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.

The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.

And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.

The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.

It isn't illegal to seek asylum, nor to enter the country on a small boat to do so.

But "asylum" as a concept has been broken, courtesy of the organised boatloads of queue-bargers. Queue-barging is inimical to the British way of doing things. We have alway been a generous nation to those in genuine need. That has been tested - and quite possibly broken - by those who have no case other than they want to to make more money than they can at home..

The problem is that lunatics are overseeing asylum.

Morning all

I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.

There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.

The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.

And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.

The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.

It isn't illegal to seek asylum, nor to enter the country on a small boat to do so.

But "asylum" as a concept has been broken, courtesy of the organised boatloads of queue-bargers. Queue-barging is inimical to the British way of doing things. We have alway been a generous nation to those in genuine need. That has been tested - and quite possibly broken - by those who have no case other than they want to to make more money than they can at home..

My Grandmother had some trouble escaping Vienna to make it to Britain after the Anschluss, and I do not think that the general experience of Jewish refugees seeking to make their way to Britain would accord with the judgement that Britain has, "always been a generous nation to those in genuine need," for all that we laud those individuals who made an effort in the face of hostility and official obstructionism to do so.

Morning all

I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.

There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.

The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.

And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.

The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.

It isn't illegal to seek asylum, nor to enter the country on a small boat to do so.

People currently in France do not require asylum.

Morning all

I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.

There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.

The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.

And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.

The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.

It isn't illegal to seek asylum, nor to enter the country on a small boat to do so.

But "asylum" as a concept has been broken, courtesy of the organised boatloads of queue-bargers. Queue-barging is inimical to the British way of doing things. We have alway been a generous nation to those in genuine need. That has been tested - and quite possibly broken - by those who have no case other than they want to to make more money than they can at home..

A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.

Worst job market for 40 years basically.

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/james-reed-graduate-jobs-no-longer-a-given-fhnjk70hp

I graduated 40 years ago when there were over three million registered as unemployed and I couldn't even get into teacher training which was seen as the last resort (sorry, @ydoethur ).

I did my time queuing at the job centre with all the others who couldn't find work. Eventually, and much against my better judgement (but out of financial necessity), I worked in a bookies (which I had through my student holidays) for a year or so and hated it. Marking the board on odd afternoons was a bit of a laugh but as your main employment (apart from the money), it was very different and not pleasant.

As an aside, it would be much worse now given the long hours.

Working in a bookie 40 years ago would be great fun compared to today.

Today you’re basically babysitting the machines on which the lowest in society are losing their rent money, and dealing with a bunch of idiots waving their phones showing better odds then you can give them. All for minimum wage, and with a fair chance of getting robbed for the contents of the safe.

Turf accountancy is probably an extreme example, but it's probably true of most jobs. Captain Mainwaring's successor at Swallow Bank surely has less status and autonomy, even if the Walmington-on-Sea branch still exists. GPs get to do less of the Dr Finlay bit. And so on.

It's happened for a reason, and there's no point trying to undo the process. Things and services are cheaper and more abundant and more convenient, and we have mostly gained more on that side of the balance than we have lost on the other.

But there has been a cost, and I suspect it's one of the factors in left-behind populism. Perhaps we haven't used the gains from automation and tech-enabled management as wisely as we should.

Morning all

I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.

There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.

The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.

And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.

The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.

The problem is that the law is a mess. The law may be clear, but the application is not.

Trans-women and Trans-men exist, and in significant numbers. Accessing health care for surgical transition has become much more difficult, with the Cass report effectively closing down care as the waiting lists are many years long. Even fully "passing" post surgical Trans-folk would be restricted to use facilities of their biological sex. So these people are either forced back into the closet, housebound, or can not use public facitities. Its a very punitive approach.

Then there's the problem of enforcement. Who can check the biological sex of everyone in the workplace, restaurant or public convenience? Who is responsible for the offence caused when users are incorrectly challenged. It is facile to deny that these are real problems. In practice this law is going to be openly flouted, and a law that is widely ignored, particularly in avante garde or hipster parts of the country.

I was thinking the other night about @BlancheLivermore bad hospital experience when ill. There were several aspects to this, but one was the lack of privacy. We are unusual as a developed country to expect 6 or so people to share the same ward bay. In most similar countries hospitals have single rooms with ensuite. Similarly communal changing areas without cubicles are the norm in all the hospitals that I have worked in. This does not match modern cultural mores. Newly constructed facilities should be built differently, but we have a vast legacy estate that cannot simply be altered. Privacy includes much more than sex and gender aspects.

There was never any need to check the biological sex of people using loos and rest rooms before and there won't be now unless you assume that trans people are the sort of people who will break the law . And if they are then it is absolutely right that they should be treated like other law breakers. No man passes and no one can surgically transition to the opposite sex because changing sex is impossible. It is at best cosmetic surgery though it may make that person content. In any event, the vast majority of trans people do not have surgery of any kind and many do nothing at all - just utter magic words and expect to have access to other people's spaces. See the nurse "Rose" in Darlington, a man trying to get his girlfriend pregnant who has done nothing at all to himself.

No-one is forced to be housebound because the obvious answer is to provide unisex facilities. Take some of the men's loos and make them unisex - problem solved. Or make the men's facilities unisex. There. This claim that it is impossible to provide unisex facilities is just nonsense. Organisations were quick to turn female facilities into unisex ones so they can just unscrew the sign on the door and replace it with the correct one.

As for employees - employers need to make clear what is expected and that anyone breaching the rules will be disciplined. They have in any case been under an obligation to prevent sexual harassment of their staff since October 2024 and permitting voyeurism and indecent exposure (both criminal offences) would be caught by this duty.

This is not a case of it's too difficult / we can't do it. Ot is not too difficult and it can be done. It is, frankly, a case we don't want to and we don't care if women are harmed as a result. This is unacceptable.

Example: Stevenage Council has recently opened unisex changing facilities at a new sports centre. There have been complaints of voyeurism etc and the police have warned the council of the risk. And the response? We don't care and there have only been 4 reported crimes. Oh well, that's all right then. Councillors should be asked how many crimes are acceptable and which of their female relatives should be subject to such crimes.