Best Of

@AllieRenison

Under a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition in 2012, the UK and Chile signed an agreement exempting temporary workers from social security contributions for *five* years

Not undercutting then, not undercutting now with India

Do better, people

https://x.com/AllieRenison/status/1919884275102400992

That argument will just get a frosty reception from Reform. And they will use it to say "It is not enough to kick Labour out, you have to punish the Tories too, they started this nonsense".

Why the hullabaloo about this policy? It doesn't make sense for a worker on a temporary intracompany transfer to pay into two social security systems at the same time. This policy is designed to boost services trade with a large, fast growing economy. If there ever was a Brexit dividend, being able to negotiate these kinds of deal is it - remember the Brexiteers telling us we couldn't tie ourselves to sclerotic Europe, we needed deals with the Commonwealth, we needed to focus on our advantages in services... The fact that Farage lobbied for Brexit and is now up in arms about this is indicative of what a charlatan he is.

I saw someone get arrested for shoplifting the other day. Police car appeared suddenly, blocking pavement and out popped two officers who grabbed the person, whilst leaving their companion alone. Seemed very slick.

Definitely my lived experience (not totally sure what the 'lived' bit adds there other than winding up some people) is that shoplifting seems more common as do security guards in shops... feel sorry for the retail workers.

"Lived experience" is an important phrase.

It is intended to prevent ignorant people using their own opinions to belittle the experience of others. For example men lecturing women about dangers of sex crime, or able bodied lecturing disabled people about "I could get a wheelchair through there - why can't you" when they block a pavement, or assuming that a Guide Dog can walk ahead of a blind person rather than requiring a gap for side by side.

It means far more than a mere "my opinion".

I suppose you are right, in that experience of seeing disabled people is different from experience of being a disabled person.

Yes - it's like a focus group vs an average, and the importance of particular different experiences (especially minority experiences) about which assumptions are often just casually made.

The classic example for me was that I had been walking through wheelchair blocking barriers for decades and decades with a sideways shimmy and not a thought, and did not even perceive a problem until I had to push a wheelchair through one. Then I started noticing them everywhere.

I have one in my town which has been there for 60 years, where the "wheeling" diversion for mobility aids, prams etc is 700m rather than 20m down the path to the churchyard. It's in one of those housing estates which is laid out like a lung.

Why not just buy an angle grinder not like you will ever get caught for removing them

There's a whole bundle of reasons.

One is that there is a peculiar irrational emotional attachment to these things for some, and quite possibly Council money will be spent on putting one back. Another is that the real solutions is that the assumptions in the system need to be rewritten. A third is that there are perhaps 250 such in my town and environs, and the only way I will get rid of all of them is by changing those assumptions.

It is often the case that a Council has just forgotten what they have, or think they are OK. I have yet to see a single Highways Authority who have a database or a map.

I have known people who have made an executive decision to remove one, but it won't work in a housing estate - and personally I would be unlikely to do so unless I have a lawful defence strong enough to face down any authorities who want to please complaining locals.

I had one removed, and the Council spent about 3k installing a replacement that was about 15cm wider.

Target one to start with, they put it back you take it back down repeat till they give up....move onto the next. It is the only way to fight the bastards

I don't think that's the way, except in certain cases. I prefer to change them from being bastards to not-bastards.

There are something like 250k+ of these nationwide in England (based on a full survey of the National Cycling and Walking Network), and I don't think that will do it. And there are (fairly clunky) laws and guidance in place that will win the argument over time; progress is happening.

I'm interested to see what RefUK controlled County Councils will try and do.

They intend to cut immigration by cancelling pylons.

Marks and Spencer. Camden

All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in

“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”

But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us

Jeezo, this has really upset you.

FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.

The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.

I respect your lived experience, of course.

Lived experience is code for own facts.

This is actual EXPERIENCE.

We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.

You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.

My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.

We never reported it.

That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.

Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.

The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.

Something has changed.

I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.

And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.

These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.

Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.

Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.

I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!

It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time

Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.

At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.

If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.

If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.

(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).

Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.

The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.

On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that

The big retailers have actually got together and started hiring firms to prosecute shoplifters directly:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/24/private-investigators-prosecute-shoplifters-london/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

It's where a small investment in the police budget would probably make a huge difference.

Yes, but you also need to fund the courts properly. Any linear system will only move at the speed of its slowest element.

(Read The Goal.)

Marks and Spencer. Camden

All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in

“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”

But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us

Jeezo, this has really upset you.

FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.

The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.

I respect your lived experience, of course.

Lived experience is code for own facts.

This is actual EXPERIENCE.

We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.

You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.

My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.

We never reported it.

That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.

Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.

The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.

Something has changed.

I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.

And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.

These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.

Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.

Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.

I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!

It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time

Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.

At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.

If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.

If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.

(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).

Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.

The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.

On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that

The big retailers have actually got together and started hiring firms to prosecute shoplifters directly:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/24/private-investigators-prosecute-shoplifters-london/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

It's where a small investment in the police budget would probably make a huge difference.

Talking of Wick - though all on pb will spot the error in the second para straight away:
https://www.timeout.com/uk/news/this-is-officially-the-uks-most-remote-train-journey-050525

Oh dear, oh dear.

That's a pretty epic geography fail.

Is Thurso further north?

Thurso is where you end up when you follow "The North" on road signs.

Are you sure? Last time I tried that I ended up at the Canadian border.

Are there signs in washington state saying "Alaska (via Canada)"?

Not that I remember, I'm afraid. What I do know is that driving from Seattle to Anchorage is extremely convoluted.

I looked it up. There's a procedure, and you might be allowed to do it even if you wouldn't otherwise qualify for entry into Canada:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20201201/004/index-en.aspx?wbdisable=true

Edit: this appears to be covid related

Wow: that's fascinating.

I have a friend who drove from Anchorage to the Miami Keys Key West, Florida. She spent almost as long getting from Anchorage to Seattle, as from Seattle to Florida.

I just looked it up on Google Maps:

41 hours of driving from Anchorage to Seattle, 51 hours from Seattle to Key West.

That's insane.

Hey Chel, you know it's kinda funny
Texas always seems so big
But you know you're in the largest state in the Union
When you're anchored down in Anchorage

Ah!

One of my favourite songs of ALL TIME

Equally good is:

I kicked in his door at 5 am
I've come for the bike I told the repo man
My 920's gonna take me far today
You can travel for miles and never leave L.A.


Genuinely one of the greatest lyric music talents that is most neglected; I love her

I saw someone get arrested for shoplifting the other day. Police car appeared suddenly, blocking pavement and out popped two officers who grabbed the person, whilst leaving their companion alone. Seemed very slick.

Definitely my lived experience (not totally sure what the 'lived' bit adds there other than winding up some people) is that shoplifting seems more common as do security guards in shops... feel sorry for the retail workers.

Lived experience means experience. Sadly it's become a sociology catchphrase. Sociology catchphrases worming their way into activist discourse and thereby into general discourse is not a great development. They become magic, ungainsayable mantras.

You could, I suppose, contrast lived experience with vicarious experience. But that's already distinguished by 'vicarious'.

I'd say "lived" experience implies something direct and constant, and of a weighty matter, so it does add something if used correctly.

Eg for me:

My lived experience of Hampstead says RUK have no chance here. That works.

In my lived experience of Waitrose their tomatoes are overripe. That doesn't work. Not a weighty matter.

My lived experience of Bruges is it's a lovely little town. Doesn't work. Not constant. I've only been once for a short holiday.

I saw someone get arrested for shoplifting the other day. Police car appeared suddenly, blocking pavement and out popped two officers who grabbed the person, whilst leaving their companion alone. Seemed very slick.

Definitely my lived experience (not totally sure what the 'lived' bit adds there other than winding up some people) is that shoplifting seems more common as do security guards in shops... feel sorry for the retail workers.

"Lived experience" is an important phrase.

It is intended to prevent ignorant people using their own opinions to belittle the experience of others. For example men lecturing women about dangers of sex crime, or able bodied lecturing disabled people about "I could get a wheelchair through there - why can't you?" when they thoughtlessly block a pavement with their vehicle, or assuming that a Guide Dog can walk ahead of a blind person rather than requiring a gap for side by side.

It means far more than a mere "my opinion".

There's a reason why we all have two ears and one mouth, to borrow a phrase from my gran.