Best Of

Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:

Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.

Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.

Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.

Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.

These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gyplpyj00o

Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.

Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.

That’s not the full picture.

The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.

It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.

50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.

The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.

The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.

There's a phenomenon here that's similar to the one explored in the "Eat well for less" show.

Of course commercial businesses upsell. It's their duty to maximise profits. But it leads to consumers paying more for things they don't need/use/benefit from.

(There's a line I use when discussing industrial chemistry, that the purpose of a chemical factory is to make profits, not chemicals. No shame in that, but important to understand why they do what they do.)

So my question about social tariffs is how much they are subsidised, and how much are they like supermarket basics brands where you have to fill in a form to be allowed to buy them? I'm guessing a bit of both.

(Which reminds me, I need to do the haggle dance with my broadband provider. I'd much rather pay a consistent fair price and forget about it, but that's not allowed, it seems.)

Recently I cancelled my Independent subscription (or maybe one of the others). It said OK. Then it said why not press this button to rollover your subscription at a third of the price, so I'm now only wasting a third of the money on a news outlet I barely read. But the point is there was no haggling. They've automated the human touch out of the process.

Within a couple of hours of posting this, I received an email from the Independent. I wonder what is their PB username.

Long sentences for these arseholes.

Good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o

Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".

Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.

Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.

He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.

It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.

So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.

He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.

Yes.

It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.

GBH can face a life sentence too.

Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.

We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.

Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:

Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.

I mostly agree with you, but the point about the 'rule of law' is that it applies to everyone, it applies to people who don't agree with some specifics of it, it applies to people who are arrogant enough to think that their personal superior views constitute a defence to GBH and other crimes, and judges in sentencing have to apply it whatever their personal opinions.

The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.

Long sentences for these arseholes.

Good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o

Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".

Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.

Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.

He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.

It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.

So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.

He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.

Yes.

It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.

GBH can face a life sentence too.

Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.

We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.

Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:

Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.

I mostly agree with you, but the point about the 'rule of law' is that it applies to everyone, it applies to people who don't agree with some specifics of it, it applies to people who are arrogant enough to think that their personal superior views constitute a defence to GBH and other crimes, and judges in sentencing have to apply it whatever their personal opinions.

The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.

Up to a point. Sometimes you have to conclude that the law is just wrong. You can either wait around for the law to change, campaign to change it, or break the law and be prepared to face the consequences. I don't think that following the law at all times is necessarily the best course of action and I don't think most other people do, either.

If people hadn't broken the law and refused to pay the poll tax we would still have it.

Nobody is happy with its replacement, council tax, but it's survived because no-one has been willing to court unpopularity by changing or replacing it.

Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there...
Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.

I suspect it gets on the list because of stories about people being "radicalized" as YouTube feeds them steadily more and more extreme versions of whatever political views they started out with. YouTube does share a couple of characteristics with other social media that Disney et al do not:

1: more or less anybody can put content up on the platform, and there is not really any pre-scrutiny of it
2: the app is strongly incentivised to show you the content that gets greater engagement, which often means stuff that gets you worked up

You can also use youtube like TV or like a paid streaming service, where you have some favourite channels and just watch the latest episode of whatever, so it is partly in each camp.

Was out a Beaulieu yesterday with the wife and the three year old. Lovely day, interesting stuff to do. At one point came across a family with a 1 and half year old in a push chair with a phone on the go. Some sort of game of something, god knows what. At 1 and a half! FFS.

My wife and I worry about how much we use devices in front of our son and he is scarily good at operating stuff (like the DVD player*). But people need to wobble their heads a bit if they think good parenting is leaving a kid looking at a mobile phone at 18 months...

*Streaming is a con. So much stuff is an additional charge to what you already pay that we are now buying DVD's (ludicrously cheap, like a Leon coffee can, from ebay or vinted).

Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there...
Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.

It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.

Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.

It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.

Is PB on Ze List?

Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.

Ruining young minds. Imagine the impact on an impressionable 10 year old of coming across that debate on roundabout etiquette that raged on here for the best part of 3 days last month.

Always give way to the right

Seems to be the way these days.

Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there...
Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.

It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.

Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.

It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.

Is PB on Ze List?

Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.

Ruining young minds. Imagine the impact on an impressionable 10 year old of coming across that debate on roundabout etiquette that raged on here for the best part of 3 days last month.

Always give way to the right

Long sentences for these arseholes.

Good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o

Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".

Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.

Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.

He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.

It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.

So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.

He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.

Yes.

It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.

GBH can face a life sentence too.

Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.

We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.

Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:

Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.

But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.

There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.

I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.

Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous.
I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.

Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there...
Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.

It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.

Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.

It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.

Is PB on Ze List?

Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.

Ruining young minds. Imagine the impact on an impressionable 10 year old of coming across that debate on roundabout etiquette that raged on here for the best part of 3 days last month.

Someone is still holding out, in that tank on the Lithuanian roundabout.

I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.

What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.

Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.

It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.

It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.

Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.

That Reform announcement today.

God knows what that nonsense is all about.