Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Johnson’s government ending with just 13% saying it’s competent – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    New thread

    Where?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    ydoethur said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    Not quite true. They have to have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect somebody has been drinking.

    This got two rather stupid special constables and their sergeant into trouble when they decided to stop every motorist in Dursley to breathalyse them, and with them having refused to show somebody (no names!) ID he called 999 and had them arrested for unlawful obstruction of a public highway and impersonating a police officer. The Chief Constable was not impressed.

    HOWEVER, they can breathalyse anyone they stop, without giving a reason, once they have legitimately stopped them for something else.
    Yes - they just need to be creative - "You cut the corner", "You were too close to the car in front", "You pulled out of the pub car-park"

    Or like my poor friend who was about to mount his moped after leaving the pub pissed, was seen by a policeman who suggest he find another way home (it was about a 3 mile walk, but doable) and then waited round the corner 10 mins, and nicked him riding his moped....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    They should not behave as they did when they previously stopped him.
    As reflected in the fact that several officers are facing charges of gross misconduct.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Lovely bit of victim blaming!
    He did not stop for the police. I'd expect to have to account for that if I did the same.

    I have some sympathy for him - he is clearly getting picked on as a young black guy driving very late at night in flash cars. But he didn't stop for the police - an offence in itself.
    After Sarah Everard I think the police should expect everyone to try and reach somewhere safe before pulling over.
    It was safe. There is also a big difference between a small young woman and a professional athlete. To be vaguely humourous if he ran, they weren't gonna catch him...
    They were armed. He could outrun them, could he outrun a bullet?

    Also, I understand this was the second time they had stopped him.
    Third, apparently.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62546231
    ...In July 2020, footage of Ms Williams and Mr Dos Santos being searched and handcuffed was widely shared on social media, with Ms Williams later accusing the police of racially profiling them.
    After the search, details of the couple's three-month-old baby were also stored on a police database called Merlin, used to record information on children who become known to the authorities.
    In April, the IOPC said an acting police sergeant and four police constables will all face a gross misconduct disciplinary hearing over the incident...

    And they will I assume put their side of the story. They may have acted badly, god knows how many police have been shown to be wrong 'uns recently, but they may not.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    ydoethur said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    Not quite true. They have to have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect somebody has been drinking.

    This got two rather stupid special constables and their sergeant into trouble when they decided to stop every motorist in Dursley to breathalyse them, and with them having refused to show somebody (no names!) ID he called 999 and had them arrested for unlawful obstruction of a public highway and impersonating a police officer. The Chief Constable was not impressed.

    HOWEVER, they can breathalyse anyone they stop, without giving a reason, once they have legitimately stopped them for something else.
    Yes - they just need to be creative - "You cut the corner", "You were too close to the car in front", "You pulled out of the pub car-park"

    Or like my poor friend who was about to mount his moped after leaving the pub pissed, was seen by a policeman who suggest he find another way home (it was about a 3 mile walk, but doable) and then waited round the corner 10 mins, and nicked him riding his moped....
    TBF, if he was pissed, that was his own bloody fool fault. As you are saying about this athlete...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    Nigelb said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    They should not behave as they did when they previously stopped him.
    As reflected in the fact that several officers are facing charges of gross misconduct.
    I think it fairer to wait for the outcome. Innocent until proven guilty please.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,460
    ydoethur said:

    New thread

    Where?
    It was there. Something about manners from cyclefree.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322

    ydoethur said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    Not quite true. They have to have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect somebody has been drinking.

    This got two rather stupid special constables and their sergeant into trouble when they decided to stop every motorist in Dursley to breathalyse them, and with them having refused to show somebody (no names!) ID he called 999 and had them arrested for unlawful obstruction of a public highway and impersonating a police officer. The Chief Constable was not impressed.

    HOWEVER, they can breathalyse anyone they stop, without giving a reason, once they have legitimately stopped them for something else.
    Yes - they just need to be creative - "You cut the corner", "You were too close to the car in front", "You pulled out of the pub car-park"

    Or like my poor friend who was about to mount his moped after leaving the pub pissed, was seen by a policeman who suggest he find another way home (it was about a 3 mile walk, but doable) and then waited round the corner 10 mins, and nicked him riding his moped....
    The police should not be creative, that is absolutely where it goes wrong, and they end up more "creative" the less they like the person or whatever group they are from to the extent that they end up justifying planting evidence as it means one more bad guy off the streets. They should be factual.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    ydoethur said:

    New thread

    Where?
    It was there. Something about manners from cyclefree.
    I've fixed it now. Oh, and bagsied a First.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Lovely bit of victim blaming!
    He did not stop for the police. I'd expect to have to account for that if I did the same.

    I have some sympathy for him - he is clearly getting picked on as a young black guy driving very late at night in flash cars. But he didn't stop for the police - an offence in itself.
    After Sarah Everard I think the police should expect everyone to try and reach somewhere safe before pulling over.
    It was safe. There is also a big difference between a small young woman and a professional athlete. To be vaguely humourous if he ran, they weren't gonna catch him...
    They were armed. He could outrun them, could he outrun a bullet?

    Also, I understand this was the second time they had stopped him.
    Third, apparently.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62546231
    ...In July 2020, footage of Ms Williams and Mr Dos Santos being searched and handcuffed was widely shared on social media, with Ms Williams later accusing the police of racially profiling them.
    After the search, details of the couple's three-month-old baby were also stored on a police database called Merlin, used to record information on children who become known to the authorities.
    In April, the IOPC said an acting police sergeant and four police constables will all face a gross misconduct disciplinary hearing over the incident...

    And they will I assume put their side of the story. They may have acted badly, god knows how many police have been shown to be wrong 'uns recently, but they may not.
    The Met have already issued a formal apology.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322

    Nigelb said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    They should not behave as they did when they previously stopped him.
    As reflected in the fact that several officers are facing charges of gross misconduct.
    I think it fairer to wait for the outcome. Innocent until proven guilty please.
    Why? You expect to be able to criticise the guy who was stopped not only in advance of any conviction, but when we all know no conviction will happen? Why can others not criticise the police when they take years to take any disciplinary action? And allow such action to be easily avoided by transferring to another force.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    They should not behave as they did when they previously stopped him.
    As reflected in the fact that several officers are facing charges of gross misconduct.
    I think it fairer to wait for the outcome. Innocent until proven guilty please.
    You have already judged Mr Dos Santos.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Rishi Sunak has committed to cutting Civil Service jobs as part of a “shake up” of the “bloated post-Covid state” that would also require senior civil servants to spend a year working outside of Whitehall if they want promotion.

    The Sunak campaign said the plans include cutting the “back office” headcount, changing pay rewards from being based on longevity to performance, bringing back a version of the suspended fast-stream graduate recruitment programme, and championing the use of apprenticeships.

    The Tory leadership hopeful and former chancellor said the “bloated post-Covid state is in need of a shake-up” and committed to reforms to create a “leaner” and “truly Rolls Royce service”.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rishi-sunak-civil-service-job-cuts-b1018754.html

    Pretty desperate stuff from Rishi who seems to be flailing around in search of headlines, even if you might agree with him on certain points.

    If you're proposing things - efficiency savings, slimming the service etc - that you could have or already had proposed whilst in government for years, it's a fair bet it will not work or you'd have done it by now.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127
    edited August 2022

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I'm just thinking back to when Rangers went bust thanks to HMRC, an executive agency of UKG, requiring that taxes be paid. I seem to recall that quite a few fans blamed the SNP (albeit amongst other things).
    Not really a plausible story. As if HMRC actually got somebody to pay tax.
    HMRC won the court case (after many years), but they didn’t get a penny, because Rangers no longer legally exists.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
    Sounds like HMRC.
    It is reminiscent of the Covid loans fraud scandal: a lot of the companies were subsequently simply wrapped up. A lot of people who should be behind bars are instead laughing all the way to the bank.

    The cheek is that “Rangers” still claim all their pre-2012 achievements. Funny that. They don’t exist for tax purposes, but they do for sporting purposes.
    Of course they do, because the club is the fans, not the legal entity. It's the same reason why AFC Wimbledon has the history of Wimbledon FC (and the Milton Keynes franchise has had to agree to that).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited August 2022

    Rishi Sunak has committed to cutting Civil Service jobs as part of a “shake up” of the “bloated post-Covid state” that would also require senior civil servants to spend a year working outside of Whitehall if they want promotion.

    The Sunak campaign said the plans include cutting the “back office” headcount, changing pay rewards from being based on longevity to performance, bringing back a version of the suspended fast-stream graduate recruitment programme, and championing the use of apprenticeships.

    The Tory leadership hopeful and former chancellor said the “bloated post-Covid state is in need of a shake-up” and committed to reforms to create a “leaner” and “truly Rolls Royce service”.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rishi-sunak-civil-service-job-cuts-b1018754.html

    Pretty desperate stuff from Rishi who seems to be flailing around in search of headlines, even if you might agree with him on certain points.

    It works in big business though. Blue Chips do this on a regular cycle. Cut a % of jobs, make the survivors feel like they are lucky to still have a job where they get to do 120% of their previous job for a 1.071% pay rise.
    In what sense does it work? My experience of the private sector is that it encourages a high turnover of staff - the best staff will tend not to stay anywhere for too long because they can find a better job elsewhere. This means that the institution has a big problem holding onto institutional knowledge - the number of meetings that become a question of, "who is left who still knows what x is?"

    This also means there's a constant struggle to recruit people with the necessary skills, little incentive to train anyone (because they'll leave and the training expense will be wasted), which creates a large overhead, and then you have to deal with a proportion of absolute duffers who get brought in because there's no-one else available.

    I'm not saying the staffing approach in the public sector is without its problems, but I'd be hard-pressed to say it was better in the private sector (though I've done very well out of it salary-wise).
    In the sense that they all do it. New CEO is appointed. New management team. Need to make cuts. Fire a load of people. Get efficiency savings for the board. Do it again. Take a huuuuge bonus. Then notice that some departments are inefficient. Restructure. Hire "new" staff who then drive better performance. Take another huuuuge bonus. Leave.

    Rinse. Repeat.
    I wouldn't mind so much but those doing new restructures always act like people are incredibly stupid, and wont notice that that the new structure they just declared to be efficient and robust they are now saying is neither.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,154

    ydoethur said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    Not quite true. They have to have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect somebody has been drinking.

    This got two rather stupid special constables and their sergeant into trouble when they decided to stop every motorist in Dursley to breathalyse them, and with them having refused to show somebody (no names!) ID he called 999 and had them arrested for unlawful obstruction of a public highway and impersonating a police officer. The Chief Constable was not impressed.

    HOWEVER, they can breathalyse anyone they stop, without giving a reason, once they have legitimately stopped them for something else.
    Yes - they just need to be creative - "You cut the corner", "You were too close to the car in front", "You pulled out of the pub car-park"

    Or like my poor friend who was about to mount his moped after leaving the pub pissed, was seen by a policeman who suggest he find another way home (it was about a 3 mile walk, but doable) and then waited round the corner 10 mins, and nicked him riding his moped....
    The policeman went the extra mile for you friend - he had him cold when he was getting onto the moped (presumably keys in hand). Worth also considering that if he had done that and *not* waited, then if your friend caused an accident, the policeman would have been in the shit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    CD13 said:

    Mr EPG,

    Have I ever gone above the speed limit? Of course. Have I ever been fined for it?. Yes. I've been breathalysed and failed it. Back to the station with no argument, and I squeezed under the limit at the intoximeter there. They gave my car keys back and I was free. That was in 1984, and I learned my lesson. Never again.

    I've no illusions about the police. I played rugby for a while and I've always said that you can tell how rough a game it's going to be by counting how many players are Welsh and how many are coppers.

    Sections of the middle-class seem to look down on the police, regarding them as intellectually inferior. I know nothing about this athlete but he's acting like he fancies himself as being beyond the law now.

    I dont look down on the police as intellectually inferior. I've known some very able senior officers. But I feel like I have little choice but to look down on them as institutionally one of the least competent organisations I've ever seen, and one of the most arrogant and resistant to change, which given their power over the citizenry is a big worry.

    It isnt a few bad apples, it is simply too widespread in so many different areas to not be fundamentally broken as a service.
  • ydoethur said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    Not quite true. They have to have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect somebody has been drinking.

    This got two rather stupid special constables and their sergeant into trouble when they decided to stop every motorist in Dursley to breathalyse them, and with them having refused to show somebody (no names!) ID he called 999 and had them arrested for unlawful obstruction of a public highway and impersonating a police officer. The Chief Constable was not impressed.

    HOWEVER, they can breathalyse anyone they stop, without giving a reason, once they have legitimately stopped them for something else.
    Yes - they just need to be creative - "You cut the corner", "You were too close to the car in front", "You pulled out of the pub car-park"

    Or like my poor friend who was about to mount his moped after leaving the pub pissed, was seen by a policeman who suggest he find another way home (it was about a 3 mile walk, but doable) and then waited round the corner 10 mins, and nicked him riding his moped....
    The Copper used his judgement to give the guy a chance to do the sensible thing. He then made sure that he stayed around to stop him if he failed to follow his advice and thus prevented a possible accident. Sounds like good policing to me.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I'm just thinking back to when Rangers went bust thanks to HMRC, an executive agency of UKG, requiring that taxes be paid. I seem to recall that quite a few fans blamed the SNP (albeit amongst other things).
    Not really a plausible story. As if HMRC actually got somebody to pay tax.
    HMRC won the court case (after many years), but they didn’t get a penny, because Rangers no longer legally exists.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
    Sounds like HMRC.
    It is reminiscent of the Covid loans fraud scandal: a lot of the companies were subsequently simply wrapped up. A lot of people who should be behind bars are instead laughing all the way to the bank.

    The cheek is that “Rangers” still claim all their pre-2012 achievements. Funny that. They don’t exist for tax purposes, but they do for sporting purposes.
    “Rangers” are the football equivalent of the dodgy building and double glazing firms who go bust leaving all their customers guarantees worthless, whilst starting a new business with a very similar name to the old one, and still driving around in the same very expensive car.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Is UK energy just irretrievably fucked ?

    Energy production in Scotland seems pretty good..

    Have had interesting conversations with my Spanish FIL these last few weeks out here. Spain isn't on the hook to Russia for energy - their gas comes from north Africa apparently. Spain supposedly told the EU where to stick its energy reduction targets and is unhappy with paying Ukraine-affected market prices for gas when its gas isn't affected.

    That feels very similar to energy generation in Scotland. TNUoS - Transmission Network Use of System charges from the National Grid make it 20% more expensive to generate renewable power in Scotland (where it is plentiful) vs England. Why? Because the PLC wants to recoup £dollah for use of its wires, and the power needs to be sent such a long way to reach that London.

    This is insane. We need more renewable energy, not less. Yet the privatised "let the market decide" industry is using 30 years out of date models to penalise the power generation we have.
    There is a solution. If England doesn't want clean Scottish energy, lets stop transmitting it. Then the distance sent is much less, the cost falls, and life gets cheaper in Scotland. See, I have just written my first practical reason why Scotland should become independent.

    Stockholm Syndrome: feelings of trust and affection towards your kidnapper
    Mansfield Syndrome: feelings of trust and affection towards the party who made your shitty town more shitty
    Buchan Syndrome: realising that however bonkers Sindy appears on the surface, there are genuine practical issues behind it that unionists have no answers to
    Post of the week, so far.

    The more you delve into the topic, the more practical issues you will find. Self-government is simply common sense, and independence is normal.
    Yes, but we've spent 300 years persecuting the Scots for the sheer pleasure of it. What makes you think we're going to stop now?
    300?

    I make it approx 1,100 years. At the very least.

    It must be one of the oldest still-extant rivalries on the planet.
    Whilst neither is now independent i expect few modern nations are as old as England and Scotland and so close to their present forms too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited August 2022
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I'm just thinking back to when Rangers went bust thanks to HMRC, an executive agency of UKG, requiring that taxes be paid. I seem to recall that quite a few fans blamed the SNP (albeit amongst other things).
    Not really a plausible story. As if HMRC actually got somebody to pay tax.
    HMRC won the court case (after many years), but they didn’t get a penny, because Rangers no longer legally exists.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
    Sounds like HMRC.
    It is reminiscent of the Covid loans fraud scandal: a lot of the companies were subsequently simply wrapped up. A lot of people who should be behind bars are instead laughing all the way to the bank.

    The cheek is that “Rangers” still claim all their pre-2012 achievements. Funny that. They don’t exist for tax purposes, but they do for sporting purposes.
    Of course they do, because the club is the fans, not the legal entity. It's the same reason why AFC Wimbledon has the history of Wimbledon FC (and the Milton Keynes franchise has had to agree to that).
    Er, they absolutely are the legal entity, that's their formal existence. If that's meaningless then its totally correct they shouldn't be able to benefit from a tax wheeze.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,594
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Balrog said:

    Foxy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    FPT.
    The crisis in schools is another thing not yet visible in the urgent in tray.
    I have remarked on PB before that I've been thinking about going back into teaching for September.
    We are now six weeks since my application for a DBS (I've had one before, and have moved once since, in the same Police authority).
    Still nowt. Target is 14 days.
    Thinking of giving up and doing summat else. Have had positive responses for potential employment from several schools, but they can't just wait for my DBS to come, with no position filled. Or not come.
    Another shambles.

    Surely DBS should be instant in today's digital age ?
    We recruited someone from London recently, and the Met took 6 months to do the DBS.
    I've applied for a job in school (non teaching), since retirement, to help with new energy bills. Been waiting for a Dbs for a month now. I don’t think it will be resolved for September. Both me and the school are now stuck.
    Have you tried Disclosure Scotland. They provide same criminal records check service as DBS for anyone in the UK but historically are much faster. They used to take a week, I don't know how it takes now. They look at the same national systems as DBS so just as valid.
    Shhhh!

    SNPbad!

    Never deviate from PB’s favourite memes.
    How is that an SNP story? You’ll be saying Rangers and Celtic being shit at football are due to the SNP next.
    Disclosure Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It works well. The English agency doesn’t.

    https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland

    Shall we judge the performance of the English government by Manchester United results?
    I'm just thinking back to when Rangers went bust thanks to HMRC, an executive agency of UKG, requiring that taxes be paid. I seem to recall that quite a few fans blamed the SNP (albeit amongst other things).
    Not really a plausible story. As if HMRC actually got somebody to pay tax.
    HMRC won the court case (after many years), but they didn’t get a penny, because Rangers no longer legally exists.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
    Sounds like HMRC.
    It is reminiscent of the Covid loans fraud scandal: a lot of the companies were subsequently simply wrapped up. A lot of people who should be behind bars are instead laughing all the way to the bank.

    The cheek is that “Rangers” still claim all their pre-2012 achievements. Funny that. They don’t exist for tax purposes, but they do for sporting purposes.
    Of course they do, because the club is the fans, not the legal entity. It's the same reason why AFC Wimbledon has the history of Wimbledon FC (and the Milton Keynes franchise has had to agree to that).
    MK Dons are not a franchise in any sense of the word.

    They did not have to agree to anything.

    AFC Wimbledon treated Kingstonian appallingly, so have no moral High ground.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,594

    ydoethur said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:

    On this athlete chap who didn’t stop for the police at 4am when requested. I have little sympathy. Why was he driving at 4 am? (Lots of valid reasons). Why didn’t he stop? (Didn’t want to into the back of the police car, he says. Utter bollocks.
    Sadly he has almost certainly be racially profiled, but he has also FAILED TO STOP. That’s his mistake right there.

    Given the way he and his wife and infant child were treated the last time, it's hardly surprising.

    Two years later the police involved are still awaiting their hearing for gross misconduct.
    And unconditional apology was given some time back.
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.

    There are tens of thousands of drivers on their phones every day in London and very few armed police. Why does the met stop a car of someone who was not on their phone with seven armed police? Because he embarrassed them and they wanted to intimidate him or worse.
    Are there tens of thousands on their phones at 4 am in a flash car and sadly matching the racial profile of drug dealers?
    When people deny that white privilege exists this type of response shows it clearly does.
    It is literally saying that black people should be policed harder on sight. I remember pb getting in a tizzy about police asking for data on people who ride trains for no apparent reason except the journey. To be fair, I'm sure almost everyone would take the same position about driving at 4am.
    In theory yes, but in practice too many will go along with the police's entirely spurious reasons. The guy has been stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street (his side had parked cars) and using his phone when he wasn't. The police are lying in both cases. What should be challenged is why we allow junior police to lie and don't hold them accountable for it.
    Are they lying about the phone? He says, they say.
    Yes they are. His phone is evidence. If he had been guilty they would have fined him, it is not a he said they said situation at all.
    They suspected he was using it, he wasn't, no case to answer. Fine. Stop when instructed.

    I feel like he is trying to make a point about this. Sometimes you own actions put you into situations where stuff happens. I have sympathy for him as he clearly does get racially profiled - a young black guy driving a flash car at 4 am. Sadly that also fits another section of people that the police will be interested in. The 'phone' is the excuse to stop, followed by the 'I can smell weed' or whatever. Not every stop will come up trumps.
    It reminds me of the special drink drive campaigns at Christmas. There was never a need for special legislation for the stop - all the police has to do was 'suspect' that the driver may have been drinking.

    What is the flip side of this? Should police not stop anyone that they have suspicions about?
    Not quite true. They have to have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect somebody has been drinking.

    This got two rather stupid special constables and their sergeant into trouble when they decided to stop every motorist in Dursley to breathalyse them, and with them having refused to show somebody (no names!) ID he called 999 and had them arrested for unlawful obstruction of a public highway and impersonating a police officer. The Chief Constable was not impressed.

    HOWEVER, they can breathalyse anyone they stop, without giving a reason, once they have legitimately stopped them for something else.
    Yes - they just need to be creative - "You cut the corner", "You were too close to the car in front", "You pulled out of the pub car-park"

    Or like my poor friend who was about to mount his moped after leaving the pub pissed, was seen by a policeman who suggest he find another way home (it was about a 3 mile walk, but doable) and then waited round the corner 10 mins, and nicked him riding his moped....
    The Copper used his judgement to give the guy a chance to do the sensible thing. He then made sure that he stayed around to stop him if he failed to follow his advice and thus prevented a possible accident. Sounds like good policing to me.
    It was, absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,594
    Plenty of light rain up here. It’s just what was needed.
This discussion has been closed.