Mr. B2, is there a reason for the mineral water ban or is it because the berk in Number 10 just wants an excuse to bang on about the EU/UK differences again?
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
Mr. Age, not sure I'd go as far, but it is remarkable how the self-righteous are eagerly throwing cost after cost upon the public.
The idea that having an expensive EV funded by subsidies and tax breaks is saving the world is laughable. There are moderate benefits in terms of noise and air quality, and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. But the production of another new car and battery has an impact on the environment, and the electricity it uses has to be generated somehow. All in all, it would be a much better idea to take up cycling.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.
Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.
A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Europhile works.
Shipping water around in one shot plastic bottles is insanely bad for the environment.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
£8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
No, it's a 6.6% increase. So a fairly modest real-terms increase in the context of inflation that will rise to 4-5%.
Mr. Age, not sure I'd go as far, but it is remarkable how the self-righteous are eagerly throwing cost after cost upon the public.
The idea that having an expensive EV funded by subsidies and tax breaks is saving the world is laughable. There are moderate benefits in terms of noise and air quality, and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. But the production of another new car and battery has an impact on the environment, and the electricity it uses has to be generated somehow. All in all, it would be a much better idea to take up cycling.
But then we eat beef and lamb to get our energy, and those critters fart so much.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
£8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
No, it's a 6.6% increase. So a fairly modest real-terms increase in the context of inflation that will rise to 4-5%.
But for those low paid working 35 hours a week it will completely replace the reduction in UC at the cost of the employer rather than the taxpayer. Clever.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
Indeed, though I can't find the Welsh equivalent (rather hoping for something almost as long as Llanfair PG). Or rather I get something but the reverse translation is completely different, so no good ...
Redundant in Wales.
The church is already disestablished. Happened in 1914.
They do have historians in Wales, you know!
But not many scientists based on the proposed curriculum.
Mr. Age, cost of creation and disposal tend to get ignored.
It's a bit like the middle class, metropolitan love affair with biofuel. Nice idea, shame about the pristine rainforests in Indonesia that got cut down for oil plantations.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
Indeed, though I can't find the Welsh equivalent (rather hoping for something almost as long as Llanfair PG). Or rather I get something but the reverse translation is completely different, so no good ...
Redundant in Wales.
The church is already disestablished. Happened in 1914.
They do have historians in Wales, you know!
But not many scientists based on the proposed curriculum.
Bit of a logic fail: a 'future' and 'maybe' missing.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
Leak after leak after leak. Wednesday's will be the shortest budget speech on record. Rishi will stand up, exhort Honourable Members to read the papers, then sit down again.
Good news though
Some supposedly serious commentators were recently saying on here that a rise in the minimum wage is bad news because more people are then on the minimum wage.
Nice to know that it's "good news" again.
When the minimum wage has increased at a rate faster than inflation, it's had a nasty habit of dragging more people and skillsets into the minimum wage tier.
Ideally most people should be being paid above the minimum wage yet for the past 10 years, the supply of low skilled workers (from Europe and elsewhere) has meant that the ideal wasn't reality.
Mr. Age, cost of creation and disposal tend to get ignored.
It's a bit like the middle class, metropolitan love affair with biofuel. Nice idea, shame about the pristine rainforests in Indonesia that got cut down for oil plantations.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
Then you need an opposition that is credible and no signs of that at present
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
Indeed, though I can't find the Welsh equivalent (rather hoping for something almost as long as Llanfair PG). Or rather I get something but the reverse translation is completely different, so no good ...
Redundant in Wales.
The church is already disestablished. Happened in 1914.
Mr. Malmesbury, does that take into account how long vehicles last?
If an electric car is twice as 'green'* as a normal one but lasts only a third as long, then it's not better on that score.
*I loathe the way 'green' has become so fixated on carbon dioxide. There are other things to consider, not least whether stewardship of the natural world should mean preservation above all else, trying to re-wild, reintroduce species where they went extinct due to mankind's activities etc etc.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
£8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
No, it's a 6.6% increase. So a fairly modest real-terms increase in the context of inflation that will rise to 4-5%.
But for those low paid working 35 hours a week it will completely replace the reduction in UC at the cost of the employer rather than the taxpayer. Clever.
It does have a nice symmetry in that regard at first glance, although it does require you to ignore inflation, tax and the tapering of UC as you earn more. So in practice it doesn't come even remotely close.
Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.
Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.
That makes a lot of sense on environmental grounds. Trucking water around in plastic bottles to satisfy marketing-induced demand is absurd.
Next up, ban cheese imports! Liz Truss was way ahead of the curve.
If Boris Johnson announced that, thanks to Brexit, we could now strengthen our animal cruelty laws, would you suddenly find yourself in favour of kicking puppies?
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
Mr. Malmesbury, does that take into account how long vehicles last?
If an electric car is twice as 'green'* as a normal one but lasts only a third as long, then it's not better on that score.
*I loathe the way 'green' has become so fixated on carbon dioxide. There are other things to consider, not least whether stewardship of the natural world should mean preservation above all else, trying to re-wild, reintroduce species where they went extinct due to mankind's activities etc etc.
So far, the vehicles seem to last just as long as ICE - there are examples of multi-100K etc. There are some indications that they may well last longer.
The batteries degrade, but the degradation rate seems to be similar to how HP "leaks" away from old bangers.
Battery replacement costs are currently high, but are rapidly falling.
Car makers are moving rapidly to *million mile* guaranteed batteries - that is the goal at GM, and they have packs under test....
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
Indeed, though I can't find the Welsh equivalent (rather hoping for something almost as long as Llanfair PG). Or rather I get something but the reverse translation is completely different, so no good ...
Redundant in Wales.
The church is already disestablished. Happened in 1914.
So Wales is a postantidisestablishmentarianist society.
I believe Sagan said we are children of the stars, which is fine, so long as no one seeks to say our parental stars have the right to family life here in the UK.
As those stars blew up over four and a half billion years ago, I think the point is moot.
They have nearby cousins still going.
“Nearby” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
“There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout.
I have use the word “local” to refer to objects about a million parsecs away.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
I seem to recall a GCE subject 'Physics with Chemistry'
Not highly regarded by those of us doing all three sciences as separate subjects.
Indeed, but the downside of doing them as separate subjects is that schools do not teach us that chemistry is physics, and biology is chemistry. We lose the continuity between the disciplines. Unless that has changed since I was in school
Nowhere is this clearer than in vaccines. The biological effects are achieved by the molecular chemistry of the spike protein, which is in turn achieved by the 3-dimensional presentation of electrical charges of the spike protein and the ACE-2 receptor.
Which is more important: someone telling you that “chemistry is physics” (which is misleading anyway) or having those two subjects taught properly by someone who knows their subject?
I'd argue having a good teacher is way more important than having a teacher who is the best expert in the subject.
Chemistry is physics is not at all misleading, although it might be better expressed as 'chemistry is the emergent properties of physics, and biology is the emergent properties of chemistry, and behaviour is the emergent properties of biology' etc...
Trying to predict the effects of molecules based purely on the laws of Physics has not had a good track record. For biology that is even more of an issue (if it weren’t we wouldn’t have to muck around with all that clinical testing of drugs; we would be able to calculate which would work and why).
re. Begum, it appears that the UK thinks that by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national she is a Bangladeshi citizen (which is indeed the case; one inherits citizenship in Bangladesh from one's parents).
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
Which latter the UK has decided to ignore.
Does their own law allow them to declare she is not entitled to that which she would 'normally' be entitled?
I think our own government's approach on this is questionable at best, but I think it is not as straightforward sometimes presented - our own government gets what is the law and what is lawful wrong from time to time, hence losing judicial reviews, and the Bangladeshi government presumably is not immune from being wrong either, so it could be it says she is not entitled but she is.
Government pronouncement of what is the law, any government, is not always right.
Re Begum, I thought the position was that she wanted to be let into the country in order to appeal against the decision to strip her of her British nationality on the basis that she could not properly appeal from Syria where she is currently based.
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
So basically the argument is we can make someone stateless because they seemingly qualify for citizenship elsewhere.
I think that still ends up with the person being stateless..
And it really doesn't answer nor justify the reality that is she was raised in the UK and should be the UK's problem to deal with. We should not be trying to throw our problems elsewhere.
The last point is irrelevant to the question in my opinion. The issue is whether the decision was legal, not whether it is morally 'right'. Many things are shitty but legal. We might well criticise those, but it is a different type of criticism (eg I thought the Boris prorogration was wrong, irrespective of its lawfulness, but wrong and unlawful is a different level of criticism).
As the Australian citizenship issue a few years back showed, when some MPs became ineligible due to dual citizenships that in some cases they did not even know they had (showing in some places you don't need to positively apply for it), law on citizenship is different in many places and can have unintentional effects due to the law in another place.
It might be absurd, yet still legally the case, that someone can qualify and have citizenship of another country because of the way the laws of that country are written, regardless of what the person or that country might want.
A lot of people on this issue criticise things like the government or Home Secretary having the power to strip nationality at all, which is fair enough I think that's problematic too, but is separate to whether it was done properly in this case. Similarly, her putative Bangladeshi citizenship might well be a sound interpretation under the law, even if we dislike the law allowing such an interpretation.
The question seems unresolved on that, but that it is a crappy approach to shift a problem onto somebody else is distinct from it I think.
Bangladesh has said she is not a citizen. Surely that is enough for her not to be a Bangladeshi citizen.
Probably. But not necessarily. Our government has said she is no longer a British citizen - but if they are wrong about her citizenship status, our government will be wrong about that as they would not be able to make that decision. Governments can be wrong about their power.
The problem with your argument - she is no longer entitled to citizenship for Begum is now 22 years old and citizen via a parent needed to be claimed before she was 21.
Isn't that her own damned fault?
She knew she had no British citizenship before she was 21. So we didn't make her stateless, if she's chosen to make herself stateless then that's her own damned fault. She can go rot.
re. Begum, it appears that the UK thinks that by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national she is a Bangladeshi citizen (which is indeed the case; one inherits citizenship in Bangladesh from one's parents).
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
Which latter the UK has decided to ignore.
Does their own law allow them to declare she is not entitled to that which she would 'normally' be entitled?
I think our own government's approach on this is questionable at best, but I think it is not as straightforward sometimes presented - our own government gets what is the law and what is lawful wrong from time to time, hence losing judicial reviews, and the Bangladeshi government presumably is not immune from being wrong either, so it could be it says she is not entitled but she is.
Government pronouncement of what is the law, any government, is not always right.
Re Begum, I thought the position was that she wanted to be let into the country in order to appeal against the decision to strip her of her British nationality on the basis that she could not properly appeal from Syria where she is currently based.
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
So basically the argument is we can make someone stateless because they seemingly qualify for citizenship elsewhere.
I think that still ends up with the person being stateless..
And it really doesn't answer nor justify the reality that is she was raised in the UK and should be the UK's problem to deal with. We should not be trying to throw our problems elsewhere.
The last point is irrelevant to the question in my opinion. The issue is whether the decision was legal, not whether it is morally 'right'. Many things are shitty but legal. We might well criticise those, but it is a different type of criticism (eg I thought the Boris prorogration was wrong, irrespective of its lawfulness, but wrong and unlawful is a different level of criticism).
As the Australian citizenship issue a few years back showed, when some MPs became ineligible due to dual citizenships that in some cases they did not even know they had (showing in some places you don't need to positively apply for it), law on citizenship is different in many places and can have unintentional effects due to the law in another place.
It might be absurd, yet still legally the case, that someone can qualify and have citizenship of another country because of the way the laws of that country are written, regardless of what the person or that country might want.
A lot of people on this issue criticise things like the government or Home Secretary having the power to strip nationality at all, which is fair enough I think that's problematic too, but is separate to whether it was done properly in this case. Similarly, her putative Bangladeshi citizenship might well be a sound interpretation under the law, even if we dislike the law allowing such an interpretation.
The question seems unresolved on that, but that it is a crappy approach to shift a problem onto somebody else is distinct from it I think.
Bangladesh has said she is not a citizen. Surely that is enough for her not to be a Bangladeshi citizen.
Probably. But not necessarily. Our government has said she is no longer a British citizen - but if they are wrong about her citizenship status, our government will be wrong about that as they would not be able to make that decision. Governments can be wrong about their power.
The problem with your argument - she is no longer entitled to citizenship for Begum is now 22 years old and citizen via a parent needed to be claimed before she was 21.
Isn't that her own damned fault?
She knew she had no British citizenship before she was 21. So we didn't make her stateless, if she's chosen to make herself stateless then that's her own damned fault. She can go rot.
Comments
And half the "brands" are rebadged tap water....
It's a bit like the middle class, metropolitan love affair with biofuel. Nice idea, shame about the pristine rainforests in Indonesia that got cut down for oil plantations.
Ideally most people should be being paid above the minimum wage yet for the past 10 years, the supply of low skilled workers (from Europe and elsewhere) has meant that the ideal wasn't reality.
It is science that is being banned !
If an electric car is twice as 'green'* as a normal one but lasts only a third as long, then it's not better on that score.
*I loathe the way 'green' has become so fixated on carbon dioxide. There are other things to consider, not least whether stewardship of the natural world should mean preservation above all else, trying to re-wild, reintroduce species where they went extinct due to mankind's activities etc etc.
Talk earlier in the year was to require the particular product to be 'registered' with a UK Food Safety Authority. Which would be the same as the regime the EU introduced for UK mineral water imports from January 1st 2021.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/02/eu-mineral-water-exports-uk-will-need-authorised-next-year/
Or are they going beyond that?
Though reducing water being shipped around the world could be a good thing.
I think I was fair and balanced.
Where Starmer leads, the government leads.
Get tough on anti-vaxx protests outside schools, Priti Patel urges police
Home Secretary speaks out as Sir Keir Starmer calls for exclusion zones to prevent demonstrators 'spreading misinformation'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/24/police-must-do-crack-dangerous-anti-vaxx-protests-outside-schools/
New Thread
Stock up on Perrier while you still have the chance.The batteries degrade, but the degradation rate seems to be similar to how HP "leaks" away from old bangers.
Battery replacement costs are currently high, but are rapidly falling.
Car makers are moving rapidly to *million mile* guaranteed batteries - that is the goal at GM, and they have packs under test....
She knew she had no British citizenship before she was 21. So we didn't make her stateless, if she's chosen to make herself stateless then that's her own damned fault. She can go rot.