Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
So, one-to-one or one-to-two undergraduate supervisions in Oxford & Cambridge (usually carried out by grad students/postdocs in the sciences) are paid at £32.59 an hour.
If your fact becomes widely known, you will collapse the College system in Oxbridge ...
Quite a number of them do do school tutoring. I've got two at Cambridge on my own books.
However, as they are not qualified teachers with years of experience of exam marking and preparation they do not command the full whack. They get about half that.
Still a premium on undergraduate tutoring, which is why they do it of course.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
Don't retire. The economy can't afford so many people to retire.
(But seriously, folks... Presumably that's one of the odd things about the economy now- the large number of people who have enough housing wealth that they feel they can act on the "I don't feel like working" impulse. Fine for Individuals, but possibly a problem at a national level.)
It’s a game of three halves. Or more.
As it has been for a long time.
Good middle class job + a smaller mortgage on a good property = “I hear things are tough for some”
Bottom end job + mad rental rates = “I’m fucked”
Retired from bottom end job = “I’m fucked, but I enjoy life more”
Retired from a high end job on massive pension, house paid off = “I hear things are bad for the young”
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.
Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
Indeed.
Liz Truss had been vindicated by the economic data, and the Tory MPs should have rallied behind her, rather than bin her after only six weeks.
So she isn't, she massively increases borrowing by cutting tax for the rich without cutting spending and the markets panicked accordingly. Sterling collapsed as did the Tory poll rating.
Sunak and Hunt are now taking the hard decisions necessary to cut the deficit before cutting taxes
This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).
Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.
It harms your cause.
Fairy nuff.
But you acknowledge that there is BBC bias. So, how does one go about countering that?
"If" there is a bias. I think it's more likely they have a strange central belt/Glasgow bias that reflects the new SNP-establishment, particularly as Aberdeenshire etc becomes more Tory and the influence of Labour fades. All while still being institutionally pro-union, given connection to BBC in London.
Matthew Syed is a presenter for the BBC. Here’s a column from today’s Sunday Times in which he offers a lot of opinions on the UK’s asylum system, a hotly contested party political issue. I’m genuinely unclear why that’s permissible:
People pretending not to understand the BBC’s policy (the special “category” of non-news presenters with vast reach) is just a bit silly now. It’s been explained to death. By all means they can say they think it’s silly (I do) but these fake “gotcha” “discoveries” are just silly.
Matthew Syed is a presenter for the BBC. Here’s a column from today’s Sunday Times in which he offers a lot of opinions on the UK’s asylum system, a hotly contested party political issue. I’m genuinely unclear why that’s permissible:
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
Don't retire. The economy can't afford so many people to retire.
(But seriously, folks... Presumably that's one of the odd things about the economy now- the large number of people who have enough housing wealth that they feel they can act on the "I don't feel like working" impulse. Fine for Individuals, but possibly a problem at a national level.)
It’s a game of three halves. Or more.
As it has been for a long time.
Good middle class job + a smaller mortgage on a good property = “I hear things are tough for some”
Bottom end job + mad rental rates = “I’m fucked”
Retired from bottom end job = “I’m fucked, but I enjoy life more”
Retired from a high end job on massive pension, house paid off = “I hear things are bad for the young”
Etc
There's also the point that private employers don't like oldies for anything more than shelf stacking, or at least some of us report. At lerast this way it's only the oldies who need the money who compete for the limited number of oldie-friendly jobs.
This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).
Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.
It harms your cause.
Oh aye?
Thank goodness the rUK is entirely relaxed about the issue of BBC impartiality.
You're still doing it haha! And you prove my point: the SNP are just moaning about the BBC like all governments do (particularly Tory ones). It's a waste of energy.
Focus on stuff like migration, wind energy potential, the Nordic model, a 50-year plan for an independent Scotland and how that could diverge from a Scotland in the current devolution framework.
As an apparent resident of Scotland and observer of its politics you should know that the SNP government is notably reticent about criticising the BBC, and much criticised for it by the more Albanian tendency. Sturgeon’s comments on the Lineker imbroglio are probably the strongest she’s made.
When are you off to Australia with your ‘girlfriend’? Looking forward to your Oz political insights.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.
Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
Was the OBR always too pessimistic, or has it been something that has varied over time?
I think we should always be wary of according too much precision to forecasts, and consider what would the situation be if, say, the deficit is £15bn higher or lower than forecast.
They have an unenviable task. Any serious forecast has bands of probabilities but they are expected to have an absurd level of precision. Most people in that scenario will aim low on the basis that far fewer are going to complain if your forecast is exceeded. But it has become a self limiting criteria on policy.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).
Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.
It harms your cause.
Oh aye?
Thank goodness the rUK is entirely relaxed about the issue of BBC impartiality.
You're still doing it haha! And you prove my point: the SNP are just moaning about the BBC like all governments do (particularly Tory ones). It's a waste of energy.
Focus on stuff like migration, wind energy potential, the Nordic model, a 50-year plan for an independent Scotland and how that could diverge from a Scotland in the current devolution framework.
As an apparent resident of Scotland and observer of its politics you should know that the SNP government is notably reticent about criticising the BBC, and much criticised for it by the more Albanian tendency. Sturgeon’s comments on the Lineker imbroglio are probably the strongest she’s made.
When are you off to Australia with your ‘girlfriend’? Looking forward to your Oz political insights.
Ummmm - I know what you mean, but that could maybe have been better phrased?
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).
Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.
It harms your cause.
Oh aye?
Thank goodness the rUK is entirely relaxed about the issue of BBC impartiality.
You're still doing it haha! And you prove my point: the SNP are just moaning about the BBC like all governments do (particularly Tory ones). It's a waste of energy.
Focus on stuff like migration, wind energy potential, the Nordic model, a 50-year plan for an independent Scotland and how that could diverge from a Scotland in the current devolution framework.
As an apparent resident of Scotland and observer of its politics you should know that the SNP government is notably reticent about criticising the BBC, and much criticised for it by the more Albanian tendency. Sturgeon’s comments on the Lineker imbroglio are probably the strongest she’s made.
When are you off to Australia with your ‘girlfriend’? Looking forward to your Oz political insights.
Ummmm - I know what you mean, but that could maybe have been better phrased?
Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.
How depressing.
While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.
She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.
No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.
A nasty nasty piece of work.
It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.
The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context. Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
I thought that was the point. That her right to hold her beliefs does not preclude being mocked or criticised for her beliefs. And that some on other subjects like beliefs about, say, gender identity, have the right to seek to advance that belief but that doesn't mean that belief should override all others or not face criticism simply because it's their belief.
Clowns mocking people for their beliefs says a lot about the mockers and little about the mocked. Usually you find the mockers are thick twats with little to no intelligence with an unwarranted high opinion of themselves that is totally unjustified.
Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.
How depressing.
While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.
She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.
No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.
A nasty nasty piece of work.
It's certainly not a part of religious belief that I'm willing to respect.
Interesting, isn’t it, that we come back to interaction between rights.
The idea of untrammelled rights for anyone, no matter how deserving is horse manure.
Not quite sure what you mean by interacting rights in this context. Forbes is entitled to hold and express her views - I have no issue with that - but I also have the right to hold that particular view in contempt.
The right to have your religion “respected”, is held highly be some.
I always find that right reminding on the respect that street criminals with poor impulse control demand, but hey.
Dissing Forbes religion is acceptable, but if you said the same things about a religion held (largely) by an ethnic minority, you could face legal sanction.
Remember the Glenn Hoddle comedy?
I wouldn't go too far down that rabbit hole of argument if I were you. Gaels are arguably an ethnic minority, and certainly a linguistic one.
You are aware that arguing that a subset of white people is a minority is held to be an evidence of bigoted views, by some?
Good luck trying to get Christianity, of any variant, “protected”
Freedom of religious expression is protected.
Forbes may be the most socially conservative and religious leadership contender of a main party leader since Ann Widdecombe in 2001 but she is entitled to express her views even if you disagree
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.
Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
Was the OBR always too pessimistic, or has it been something that has varied over time?
I think we should always be wary of according too much precision to forecasts, and consider what would the situation be if, say, the deficit is £15bn higher or lower than forecast.
They have an unenviable task. Any serious forecast has bands of probabilities but they are expected to have an absurd level of precision. Most people in that scenario will aim low on the basis that far fewer are going to complain if your forecast is exceeded. But it has become a self limiting criteria on policy.
Yes. It got to the point that there was so much pessimism around, that everyone got a fright when a new administration tried to think outside the very tight box.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
If only!
A quarter of the *History* curriculum...
@Theuniondivvie has every right to point and laugh at me for not phrasing my own post very happily...
Edit - although actually, you would be surprised I think at how much English literature at A-level and GCSE is dominated by context now. That's a nice little earner in itself - providing all the information about the Tudors for Shakespeare, McCarthyism for the Crucible, Imperialism for Kipling, the Depression for Of Mice and Men...
Just caught up with the latest Kate Forbes comments on homosexuality.
How depressing.
While I’m uncomfortable with making “conversion therapy” illegal, she makes a damn good argument for why it should be.
She frames her argument in terms of “freedom” but her ideology, her church and her backers - such as Souter - were fully behind section 28 and want it reintroduced.
No freedom for the gays, in her ideal world.
A nasty nasty piece of work.
Excuse my ignorance but what exactly *is* conversion therapy? I vaguely think of it as something that anti-gay people do to try and convince gay people that they aren’t really attracted to men but sure there is more to it than that given the reaction it inspires?
Other than the particular motivation, it doesn't really.
The problem with "conversion therapy" as a term is it's a catch all for a whole bunch of different things, some of which definitely should be banned (e.g. ice-pick lobotomy) and some which definitely shouldn't (at least some of the proposed legislation would ban a church minister from merely praying with a willing same sex attracted adult that they would cease to feel that way).
In reality, most of the really bad stuff is already illegal anyway (see also laws about not torturing people, at least unless they are fully consenting adults), so any legislation is more likely to be used as a stick with which to beat Evangelical Christians for praying about stuff.
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).
Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.
It harms your cause.
Oh aye?
Thank goodness the rUK is entirely relaxed about the issue of BBC impartiality.
You're still doing it haha! And you prove my point: the SNP are just moaning about the BBC like all governments do (particularly Tory ones). It's a waste of energy.
Focus on stuff like migration, wind energy potential, the Nordic model, a 50-year plan for an independent Scotland and how that could diverge from a Scotland in the current devolution framework.
As an apparent resident of Scotland and observer of its politics you should know that the SNP government is notably reticent about criticising the BBC, and much criticised for it by the more Albanian tendency. Sturgeon’s comments on the Lineker imbroglio are probably the strongest she’s made.
When are you off to Australia with your ‘girlfriend’? Looking forward to your Oz political insights.
Questioning whether someone resides in Scotland whenever they disagree with you is also ill-advised.
I'm not even a particularly rabid unionist ffs. You and Stuart serve to confirm what PB Tories and their ilk think of Yes voters - blood and soil nationalists.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
If only!
A quarter of the *History* curriculum...
@Theuniondivvie has every right to point and laugh at me for not phrasing my own post very happily...
Ah, thanks. Um. So it's 75% un-British history? Do Romans count as furrin or patriotic Brits?
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.
Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
Was the OBR always too pessimistic, or has it been something that has varied over time?
I think we should always be wary of according too much precision to forecasts, and consider what would the situation be if, say, the deficit is £15bn higher or lower than forecast.
They have an unenviable task. Any serious forecast has bands of probabilities but they are expected to have an absurd level of precision. Most people in that scenario will aim low on the basis that far fewer are going to complain if your forecast is exceeded. But it has become a self limiting criteria on policy.
Indeed. Before there was an OBR, Labour (and particularly Brown) were often accused of undercooking the forecast so it would surprise on the upside. Those same staff moved over to the OBR.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
History isn't compulsory at GCSE in England unlike English, Maths and Science and league tables focus most on 5 GCSE passes including English and Maths , though arguably it should be.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
If only!
A quarter of the *History* curriculum...
@Theuniondivvie has every right to point and laugh at me for not phrasing my own post very happily...
Ah, thanks. Um. So it's 75% un-British history? Do Romans count as furrin or patriotic Brits?
Usually it's more than that, although it depends on the board.
The requirement for A-level history is 20% *must* be British history. Also that one unit *must* cover a minimum 100 year time span (No, I have no idea who thought that was a good idea either) and overall the course must cover 200 years or more chronologically (which is actually quite a good idea).
I also get lots from Muslim countries anxious to know more about Christianity in RS because of the requirement it must reflect British religious traditions being 'broadly Christian.'
This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).
Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.
It harms your cause.
Oh aye?
Thank goodness the rUK is entirely relaxed about the issue of BBC impartiality.
You're still doing it haha! And you prove my point: the SNP are just moaning about the BBC like all governments do (particularly Tory ones). It's a waste of energy.
Focus on stuff like migration, wind energy potential, the Nordic model, a 50-year plan for an independent Scotland and how that could diverge from a Scotland in the current devolution framework.
As an apparent resident of Scotland and observer of its politics you should know that the SNP government is notably reticent about criticising the BBC, and much criticised for it by the more Albanian tendency. Sturgeon’s comments on the Lineker imbroglio are probably the strongest she’s made.
When are you off to Australia with your ‘girlfriend’? Looking forward to your Oz political insights.
Questioning whether someone resides in Scotland whenever they disagree with you is also ill-advised.
I'm not even a particularly rabid unionist ffs. You and Stuart serve to confirm what PB Tories and their ilk think of Yes voters - blood and soil nationalists.
I could never question the Scottishness of someone who claims to have been an Outer Hebridean schoolboy sports champion and a student of the bagpipe.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
Hmmm... can accusing someone of slander or libel leave you open to be sued for libel?
This BBC stuff is a sign of weakness from SNP supporters (even if they are correct that there is a bias there).
Every time I see this come up on twitter I'm just reminded of Farage/Trump and the "MSM", or worse the stupid march on Pacific Quay in 2014.
It harms your cause.
Oh aye?
Thank goodness the rUK is entirely relaxed about the issue of BBC impartiality.
You're still doing it haha! And you prove my point: the SNP are just moaning about the BBC like all governments do (particularly Tory ones). It's a waste of energy.
Focus on stuff like migration, wind energy potential, the Nordic model, a 50-year plan for an independent Scotland and how that could diverge from a Scotland in the current devolution framework.
As an apparent resident of Scotland and observer of its politics you should know that the SNP government is notably reticent about criticising the BBC, and much criticised for it by the more Albanian tendency. Sturgeon’s comments on the Lineker imbroglio are probably the strongest she’s made.
When are you off to Australia with your ‘girlfriend’? Looking forward to your Oz political insights.
One wonders how these people expect Scotland to introduce a Nordic model while tied to what England allow them to do with regards to funds , powers , et al. Hope the flights are booked as you say.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
Don't retire. The economy can't afford so many people to retire.
(But seriously, folks... Presumably that's one of the odd things about the economy now- the large number of people who have enough housing wealth that they feel they can act on the "I don't feel like working" impulse. Fine for Individuals, but possibly a problem at a national level.)
It’s a game of three halves. Or more.
As it has been for a long time.
Good middle class job + a smaller mortgage on a good property = “I hear things are tough for some”
Bottom end job + mad rental rates = “I’m fucked”
Retired from bottom end job = “I’m fucked, but I enjoy life more”
Retired from a high end job on massive pension, house paid off = “I hear things are bad for the young”
Etc
Plus the Covid lockdown effect, where people were forced to try working a lot less, rather enjoyed it and have decided they value that over the money.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
So, one-to-one or one-to-two undergraduate supervisions in Oxford & Cambridge (usually carried out by grad students/postdocs in the sciences) are paid at £32.59 an hour.
If your fact becomes widely known, you will collapse the College system in Oxbridge ...
Quite a number of them do do school tutoring. I've got two at Cambridge on my own books.
However, as they are not qualified teachers with years of experience of exam marking and preparation they do not command the full whack. They get about half that.
Still a premium on undergraduate tutoring, which is why they do it of course.
Interesting -- I suppose there is a fringe benefit that grad students can then put some university teaching experience on their cv.
Like so many things in the UK, the College system seems to involve starvation wages at the bottom to those doing the work and massive rewards at the top to those delivering the "strategy".
One day, I hope to work out how this massive scam manages to perpetuate itself
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
"Empty vessels make most noise" is a very old saying, supposedly back to Plato but it seems apposite with social media. I've never met Fiona Bruce, but I'd never put her in the Bojo supporters catogory.
Who do you believe? The social media gobshites? Perhaps Plato was right?
It's easy to attribute motives to people based on your perceptions of them. I'm no fan of Linekers and perhaps there's bias involved. I see a man who makes a fortune flogging crisps, and spouting football inanities. He might be a man who works unselfishly to make the world a better place, and supports many charities. I'm prepared to be convinced against my will, but social media is an unlikely source.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
Of course. And I very much hope he has. But it's not slanderous to call a reformed murderer a murderer, nor therefore is it slanderous to call a reformed wife-beater a wife-beater.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
So, one-to-one or one-to-two undergraduate supervisions in Oxford & Cambridge (usually carried out by grad students/postdocs in the sciences) are paid at £32.59 an hour.
If your fact becomes widely known, you will collapse the College system in Oxbridge ...
Quite a number of them do do school tutoring. I've got two at Cambridge on my own books.
However, as they are not qualified teachers with years of experience of exam marking and preparation they do not command the full whack. They get about half that.
Still a premium on undergraduate tutoring, which is why they do it of course.
Interesting -- I suppose there is a fringe benefit that grad students can then put some university teaching experience on their cv.
Like so many things in the UK, the College system seems to involve starvation wages at the bottom to those doing the work and massive rewards at the top to those delivering the "strategy".
One day, I hope to work out how this massive scam manages to perpetuate itself
You're not the only one, but nobody in power wants to find out. Can't think why.
The other advantage of school tutoring of course is that much of it is in the evening or weekend. OK, so if you're tutoring somebody in China it's in the morning, but this country or America (which is also good business) it's not. So you can do your undergraduate tutoring and lab hours in the day, and keep the college sweet, while making actually quite serious money doing online tutoring during the evenings.
Well, if you can, why wouldn't you? Living cheaply in a college property, perhaps? Maybe even no utility bills. Funding so you don't have to worry about living expenses. You can live a nice lifestyle and still have a decent chunk saved for when you leave and want to buy a house. Plus, if there's a delay in getting a job - which there usually isn't for Cambridge science doctors - you can survive very comfortably. Or just take a gap year and travel.
If the 'news does get out' and everyone does it, of course, that would reduce the premium somewhat though...
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
Hmmm... can accusing someone of slander or libel leave you open to be sued for libel?
If so, could HY sue you?
No, because he is falsely accusing her of something. Honest opinion. And public interest.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
Don't retire. The economy can't afford so many people to retire.
(But seriously, folks... Presumably that's one of the odd things about the economy now- the large number of people who have enough housing wealth that they feel they can act on the "I don't feel like working" impulse. Fine for Individuals, but possibly a problem at a national level.)
It’s a game of three halves. Or more.
As it has been for a long time.
Good middle class job + a smaller mortgage on a good property = “I hear things are tough for some”
Bottom end job + mad rental rates = “I’m fucked”
Retired from bottom end job = “I’m fucked, but I enjoy life more”
Retired from a high end job on massive pension, house paid off = “I hear things are bad for the young”
Etc
Plus the Covid lockdown effect, where people were forced to try working a lot less, rather enjoyed it and have decided they value that over the money.
Obvs a simplification, but the world when looked at does seem to divide between the irrationally busy and those with infinite time on their hands.
For some a middle ground is available, though I should think not in the most expensive areas to live in.
Most people I know should try harder to stop doing things rather than keep finding things to do.
What better time to start than Cheltenham week.
Any thoughts on Zanahiyr e/w as an outside possibility for the Champion Hurdle?
Good grief, this is a surprise and a nice one! Thank you @stodge and @MoonRabbit for your interesting article.
A fun guide for the racing ignoramuses among us (me).
Think of it then, like the Tour de France - where we know just winning a stage can be pinnacle of a pro riders career and even for those who win quite a few stages, each one very special? So it is at the Cheltenham Festival, for owners, trainers, jockeys to get a winner in the most challenging races and duels they can enter into. Even the horses themselves know, they will dine out for life on finest hay and brandysnaps if they manage even just one win at the festival, and stand there lauded by the crowds.
And it’s all that added emotional drama, that makes the big sporting events of every year so compelling isn’t it?
As someone who comes here for the politics part not the betting part (and who skipped past your header as a result, sorry!) can I just say this is a lovely piece of writing. Really brings the excitement of Cheltenham alive, thanks!
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
Of course. And I very much hope he has. But it's not slanderous to call a reformed murderer a murderer, nor therefore is it slanderous to call a reformed wife-beater a wife-beater.
Legally people can be rehabilitated for some crimes, but not others such as murder. While you are correct it isn’t slander, don’t people deserve the chance to move on if the behaviour has changed? I’m not saying that is the case here, im just questioning the rather blunt statement that “If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.”.
I didn't understand any of the article, so I'll sit this one out, but thank you for the insights (and for stepping up to write a header, rather than just whining about other people's)
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
This conversation another reminder of how silly our politics has become under and post Bozo. I hope it was all worth it for some.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
One moment you say 'slandered'. Now 'potential slander'. Do make up your mind.
Good grief, this is a surprise and a nice one! Thank you @stodge and @MoonRabbit for your interesting article.
A fun guide for the racing ignoramuses among us (me).
Think of it then, like the Tour de France - where we know just winning a stage can be pinnacle of a pro riders career and even for those who win quite a few stages, each one very special? So it is at the Cheltenham Festival, for owners, trainers, jockeys to get a winner in the most challenging races and duels they can enter into. Even the horses themselves know, they will dine out for life on finest hay and brandysnaps if they manage even just one win at the festival, and stand there lauded by the crowds.
And it’s all that added emotional drama, that makes the big sporting events of every year so compelling isn’t it?
As someone who comes here for the politics part not the betting part (and who skipped past your header as a result, sorry!) can I just say this is a lovely piece of writing. Really brings the excitement of Cheltenham alive, thanks!
It is rather sweet. Though I did find myself wondering if the horses get cream in their brandy snaps?
Good grief, this is a surprise and a nice one! Thank you @stodge and @MoonRabbit for your interesting article.
A fun guide for the racing ignoramuses among us (me).
Think of it then, like the Tour de France - where we know just winning a stage can be pinnacle of a pro riders career and even for those who win quite a few stages, each one very special? So it is at the Cheltenham Festival, for owners, trainers, jockeys to get a winner in the most challenging races and duels they can enter into. Even the horses themselves know, they will dine out for life on finest hay and brandysnaps if they manage even just one win at the festival, and stand there lauded by the crowds.
And it’s all that added emotional drama, that makes the big sporting events of every year so compelling isn’t it?
As someone who comes here for the politics part not the betting part (and who skipped past your header as a result, sorry!) can I just say this is a lovely piece of writing. Really brings the excitement of Cheltenham alive, thanks!
It is rather sweet. Though I did find myself wondering if the horses get cream in their brandy snaps?
I know it’s the Mail, but astonishing story if true: Russia is now sending women prisoners to the front lines in Ukraine, having run out of men and seemingly unwilling to conscript any more. They’re also dragging tanks out of museums and war memorials.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.
Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
Was the OBR always too pessimistic, or has it been something that has varied over time?
I think we should always be wary of according too much precision to forecasts, and consider what would the situation be if, say, the deficit is £15bn higher or lower than forecast.
I think its job is to be pessimistic. It was set up after years when the Treasury were over optimistic and let us sleepwalk unprepared into a crisis.
One of my jobs is to forecast revenue, profits and so forth in a project accounting enviroment. I think most forecasters will likely tend to caution because i) If there's a surprise on the upside, well everyone is happy. ii) The more uncertain the underlying variables the greater the range of forecasts possible - again see i) you'll want to tend to the low end. iii) Low forecasts can always improve - revisions downward lead to ... questions. iv) Crucially though - and this applies to pessimistic or optimistic forecasts it should be readily explainable WHY your original forecast was out.
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
Channel Island tax havens, at last an area on which you have some first hand knowledge.
A cheap shot. As far as I know Carlotta is not a publicly funded corporation in receipt of millions of taxpayers money. CalMac is, and therefore tax avoidance on such a scale is simply outrageous.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
I agree with @MaxPB that the recent statistics are not consistent with any kind of recession. Once again the OBR looks to have been seriously pessimistic.
Which is ok when you are considering what the government deficit is, for example. You would not want to be overly optimistic about that and create too much downside. The problem is these overly negative projections can be self fulfilling, they do not exactly encourage investment for example. And they narrow the window in which the government can act and perhaps seek to address the underlying problems.
Was the OBR always too pessimistic, or has it been something that has varied over time?
I think we should always be wary of according too much precision to forecasts, and consider what would the situation be if, say, the deficit is £15bn higher or lower than forecast.
I think its job is to be pessimistic. It was set up after years when the Treasury were over optimistic and let us sleepwalk unprepared into a crisis.
One of my jobs is to forecast revenue, profits and so forth in a project accounting enviroment. I think most forecasters will likely tend to caution because i) If there's a surprise on the upside, well everyone is happy. ii) The more uncertain the underlying variables the greater the range of forecasts possible - again see i) you'll want to tend to the low end. iii) Low forecasts can always improve - revisions downward lead to ... questions. iv) Crucially though - and this applies to pessimistic or optimistic forecasts it should be readily explainable WHY your original forecast was out.
I am irresistibly reminded of my Churchill.
'Politics is the ability to say what will happen next week, next month and next year.' (Pause) 'And of course the ability to explain afterwards why it didn't happen.'
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
Channel Island tax havens, at last an area on which you have some first hand knowledge.
A cheap shot. As far as I know Carlotta is not a publicly funded corporation in receipt of millions of taxpayers money. CalMac is, and therefore tax avoidance on such a scale is simply outrageous.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
How do you feel about the term "former murderer" for someone who has not murdered recently?
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
Channel Island tax havens, at last an area on which you have some first hand knowledge.
A cheap shot. As far as I know Carlotta is not a publicly funded corporation in receipt of millions of taxpayers money. CalMac is, and therefore tax avoidance on such a scale is simply outrageous.
Insensitive. How can you be sure she doesn’t identify as such?
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
Channel Island tax havens, at last an area on which you have some first hand knowledge.
A cheap shot. As far as I know Carlotta is not a publicly funded corporation in receipt of millions of taxpayers money. CalMac is, and therefore tax avoidance on such a scale is simply outrageous.
You don't think Carlotta has at last found an area on on which she has some first hand knowledge? Oh well, the search goes on.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
How do you feel about the term "former murderer" for someone who has not murdered recently?
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
In addiction circles isn't the idea that you are always an addict? Ie no such thing as a former addict.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
How do you feel about the term "former murderer" for someone who has not murdered recently?
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
See my later comment on the matter. In a legal sense rehabilitation only applies to crimes that don’t result in a custodial sentence of more than four years. I wouldn’t call a child who was fined for shoplifting a thief for the rest of their life, for example.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
So a man is only a wife beater if his current wife is dead?
Without commenting on Stanley Johnson in particular, if anyone has ever killed someone then they are a murderer. If anyone has ever beaten up their wife, they are a wife beater. Even if it was in the past, with a previous wife.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Agreed. In my own experience its also less rewarding than being in school. I am happy to accept a lower wage in return for pension contributions, job security, a fantastic bunch of work colleagues and the joy of actually interacting with a box of mad frogs five hours a day.
The wage differential I’m willing to accept does have limits, though, and speaking to colleagues I suspect we are currently beyond that limit.
Nice to start the morning with a quality PB header. An all too rare event these days.
Mike himself still has the knack, but this place desperately needs succession management. Far too many quality officers have jumped ship, and the bridge has a rat or two.
Usually when I go into someone’s house and insult the hosts I at least have the excuse that I’ve been drinking all night. What time in the morning is it in Gothenberg? You need to be a bit careful…
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
How do you feel about the term "former murderer" for someone who has not murdered recently?
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
See my later comment on the matter. In a legal sense rehabilitation only applies to crimes that don’t result in a custodial sentence of more than four years. I wouldn’t call a child who was fined for shoplifting a thief for the rest of their life, for example.
Yes, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was designed to allow old convictions to become “spent”, so that people were not stigmatised for life.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
How do you feel about the term "former murderer" for someone who has not murdered recently?
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
See my later comment on the matter. In a legal sense rehabilitation only applies to crimes that don’t result in a custodial sentence of more than four years. I wouldn’t call a child who was fined for shoplifting a thief for the rest of their life, for example.
Yes, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was designed to allow old convictions to become “spent”, so that people were not stigmatised for life.
An alcoholic will almost always describe himself as such though, even if he’s been sober for decades.
Although to merge the two conversations, for jobs that require safeguarding such as teaching in a school, then even "spent" convictions may bar you for life.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
How do you feel about the term "former murderer" for someone who has not murdered recently?
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
See my later comment on the matter. In a legal sense rehabilitation only applies to crimes that don’t result in a custodial sentence of more than four years. I wouldn’t call a child who was fined for shoplifting a thief for the rest of their life, for example.
Yes, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was designed to allow old convictions to become “spent”, so that people were not stigmatised for life.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
How do you feel about the term "former murderer" for someone who has not murdered recently?
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
See my later comment on the matter. In a legal sense rehabilitation only applies to crimes that don’t result in a custodial sentence of more than four years. I wouldn’t call a child who was fined for shoplifting a thief for the rest of their life, for example.
Yes, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was designed to allow old convictions to become “spent”, so that people were not stigmatised for life.
An alcoholic will almost always describe himself as such though, even if he’s been sober for decades.
Although to merge the two conversations, for jobs that require safeguarding such as teaching in a school, then even "spent" convictions may bar you for life.
Yes, there’s a list of roles for which an enhanced police check is required, which includes convictions that would otherwise be spent. Mostly working with children or vulnerable people, or in positions of authority.
One thing about the Bruce/Johnson saga - who were the "friends" of Stanley Johnson the producer was going on about into Bruce's earpiece. The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Good grief, this is a surprise and a nice one! Thank you @stodge and @MoonRabbit for your interesting article.
A fun guide for the racing ignoramuses among us (me).
Think of it then, like the Tour de France - where we know just winning a stage can be pinnacle of a pro riders career and even for those who win quite a few stages, each one very special? So it is at the Cheltenham Festival, for owners, trainers, jockeys to get a winner in the most challenging races and duels they can enter into. Even the horses themselves know, they will dine out for life on finest hay and brandysnaps if they manage even just one win at the festival, and stand there lauded by the crowds.
And it’s all that added emotional drama, that makes the big sporting events of every year so compelling isn’t it?
As someone who comes here for the politics part not the betting part (and who skipped past your header as a result, sorry!) can I just say this is a lovely piece of writing. Really brings the excitement of Cheltenham alive, thanks!
It is rather sweet. Though I did find myself wondering if the horses get cream in their brandy snaps?
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
History isn't compulsory at GCSE in England unlike English, Maths and Science and league tables focus most on 5 GCSE passes including English and Maths , though arguably it should be.
Not really replying to you HY, as I’m not interested in a back and forth where the goalposts shimmy about, but this is out of date.
Most league tables now use progress 8 (or attainment 8): average progress from KS2 to GCSE across 8 subjects for each student, with E & M double weighted. It’s a pretty good system (with some flaws that any such system will have)
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
Channel Island tax havens, at last an area on which you have some first hand knowledge.
A cheap shot. As far as I know Carlotta is not a publicly funded corporation in receipt of millions of taxpayers money. CalMac is, and therefore tax avoidance on such a scale is simply outrageous.
Given you don't have a clue why are you digging such a big hole.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
Er, no, just no.
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
They can never be rehabilitated?
How do you feel about the term "former murderer" for someone who has not murdered recently?
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
See my later comment on the matter. In a legal sense rehabilitation only applies to crimes that don’t result in a custodial sentence of more than four years. I wouldn’t call a child who was fined for shoplifting a thief for the rest of their life, for example.
In this area of personal behaviour the whole noun thing - ie labelling someone 'a' this or that as opposed to the verb or the adjective - is potentially dodgy imo. The inference is that whatever it is defines them. It's sometimes appropriate but more often not. Case by case, though, as always. No hard & fast rules.
One thing about the Bruce/Johnson saga - who were the "friends" of Stanley Johnson the producer was going on about into Bruce's earpiece. The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Carol Vorderman has a habit of being more enthusiastic than precise on Twitter.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
If only!
A quarter of the *History* curriculum...
@Theuniondivvie has every right to point and laugh at me for not phrasing my own post very happily...
Ah, thanks. Um. So it's 75% un-British history? Do Romans count as furrin or patriotic Brits?
Def forrin - coming over here in there small boats, taking our women, taking our jobs, and what do we get in return? I mean there's the roads, and the sanitation, and the education, and the bread for the masses...
One thing about the Bruce/Johnson saga - who were the "friends" of Stanley Johnson the producer was going on about into Bruce's earpiece. The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Vorderman has really diminished herself over the last couple of years.
One thing about the Bruce/Johnson saga - who were the "friends" of Stanley Johnson the producer was going on about into Bruce's earpiece. The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Carol Vorderman has a habit of being more enthusiastic than precise on Twitter.
For someone who rose to prominence for being able to use her brain, she does appear to have in recent years turned into someone very different.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
She called Stanley Johnson a wife beater without qualification, his current wife is still alive and he is still married to her and no evidence he beats her.
So yes it was potential slander
That’s not how the law works HYUFD. Firstly when the words are broadcast they become potentially libellous (even though spoken) as it well attested from the early days of broadcast media. That’s because there is a “publisher” (or broadcaster) whereas slanderous words don’t.
There are are two robust defences here. First justification (or “truth” as it now is). He’s admitted to breaking his ex-wife’s nose. So he’s an admitted* wife beater. It’s not up to the defendant to qualify. If a jockey threw a race years ago but has never thrown one since he’s still a cheat (that example comes from an actual case I was involved in as a trainee) and can be described so. The second defence is fair comment. There’s no prospect of a defamation here whatsoever. It would be struck out at the first hurdle
* Edited to confirm there has not been a conviction. Apologies.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
Likely the victim declined to press charges. All too common back then, indeed now but less so.
Unemployment down again, employment up. This is a recession unlike any other. It is, in fact, not a recession.
Weirdly, the BBC focus almost exclusively in the drop in the number of vacancies: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64939336 The increase in employment gets a cursory and passing mention.
Despite the fact that the number of vacancies remains well above historical levels…
It’s almost as if they have an anti-government agenda
(*lights match and retires*)
This month I will earn more than I earned as a Head of Faculty. By tutoring. In History, which is hardly a subject where you can charge premium prices.
Sure, I'm working long hours, but no longer than when I was teaching, and I can fit my timetable around what I want to do.
The only thing it doesn't include, of course, is pension, but I've got quite a lot of that through TPS, a private scheme and a number of liquid assets.
If they have vacancies in schools (and I'm aware your point was wider than this) maybe they should start by pondering this problem. A physics or maths teacher can charge a hundred an hour tutoring and get it. Why would they work in a school for longer hours, less money and less flexibility?
You are also taking more risk.
Your downside may be protected by the level of vacancies in schools, but that’s why contracting work generally gets a premium
Fair point, although I'm getting lots of people in two or three year contracts.
But actually given the frequency with which schools are restructuring at the moment to try and deal with their deficits two years is about the length of time you'd expect to stay anyway.
(Again, that doesn't really apply to physics or maths teachers of course!)
Presumably lots of people asking for and hour or two a week for 2-3 years?
Quite a few. Year 10s and 12s especially. Particularly from overseas where they want to build up their knowledge and skill set in British history (which dominates the GCSE curriculum and is 20% minimum, usually more of the A-level curriculum) before crunch time in Years 11 and 13.
Had no idea that history formed almost a quarter of teaching in England. Is that deliberate or a side effect of something else like not having enough science labs?
If only!
A quarter of the *History* curriculum...
@Theuniondivvie has every right to point and laugh at me for not phrasing my own post very happily...
Ah, thanks. Um. So it's 75% un-British history? Do Romans count as furrin or patriotic Brits?
Usually it's more than that, although it depends on the board.
The requirement for A-level history is 20% *must* be British history. Also that one unit *must* cover a minimum 100 year time span (No, I have no idea who thought that was a good idea either) and overall the course must cover 200 years or more chronologically (which is actually quite a good idea).
I also get lots from Muslim countries anxious to know more about Christianity in RS because of the requirement it must reflect British religious traditions being 'broadly Christian.'
Someone who remembers studying the Long Nineteenth Century at school?
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
We're back to basics of law: 1. Has a complaint been made? 2. If so do the police believe there is sufficient evidence 3. If so do the CPS wish to proceed with a prosecution
I'm not sure a complaint has been made. Which is a position that so many women find themselves in having been abused / assaulted. Point is that she has publicly stated that it happened and never mind a denial, we've had his friends confirm it happened.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
You are libelling Ms Alibhai-Brown there, as I uinderstand the situation ... so OGH is at risk of being sued ...
Hmmm... can accusing someone of slander or libel leave you open to be sued for libel?
If so, could HY sue you?
I don’t think so - there could be an innocent reason for accidental slander.
If you were to call someone a slanderer (implying it is a fundamental characteristic) then you are on thinner ice - need to be care you don’t get OGH into hot water.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
Likely the victim declined to press charges. All too common back then, indeed now but less so.
Yes, we can't know exactly what % of the instances where a wife is hit ever touch the criminal justice system but it will be miniscule.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
Channel Island tax havens, at last an area on which you have some first hand knowledge.
A cheap shot. As far as I know Carlotta is not a publicly funded corporation in receipt of millions of taxpayers money. CalMac is, and therefore tax avoidance on such a scale is simply outrageous.
Although it’s really left pocket right pocket? Assuming (and it’s NIC so this is important) the benefits that the employees get weren’t impacted it matters less - although it’s (presumably) an effective transfer from the UK government to the Scottish government (assuming - don’t know - that the UK government handles NICs nationwide)
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
Likely the victim declined to press charges. All too common back then, indeed now but less so.
Not up to victims in the UK? Although if they don't co-operate very tough.
Only 6% of crimes reported to police lead to a charge or summons. Even more crimes are likely not reported in the first place.
It is sadly entirely normal for a wife beater to never be charged let alone convicted.
It was fairly clear from the BBC news reporting last night that the form of words had been given to her. That said, a smarter presenter would have pushed back. It's pretty obvious that saying "an allegation was previously made against him and was not denied" would have covered it.
Alibhai Brown basically slandered Stanley Johnson on QT way beyond the 1 allegation, Johnson could have sued, hence Bruce had to qualify her words.
She did no such thing. Stanley Johnson beat his wife. Broke her nose. Put her in hospital. An allegation made by his now ex-wife. Not disputed by Stanley Johnson. And confirmed openly by his friends.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation: Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The question I would be interested in is why this hasn't gone before a court, especially if its not denied?
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
Likely the victim declined to press charges. All too common back then, indeed now but less so.
Not up to victims in the UK? Although if they don't co-operate very tough.
Only 6% of crimes reported to police lead to a charge or summons. Even more crimes are likely not reported in the first place.
It is sadly entirely normal for a wife beater to never be charged let alone convicted.
You are right but I think the incident that we are discussing was before the law was changed to make charging without the victim’s cooperation easier
Comments
However, as they are not qualified teachers with years of experience of exam marking and preparation they do not command the full whack. They get about half that.
Still a premium on undergraduate tutoring, which is why they do it of course.
As it has been for a long time.
Good middle class job + a smaller mortgage on a good property = “I hear things are tough for some”
Bottom end job + mad rental rates = “I’m fucked”
Retired from bottom end job = “I’m fucked, but I enjoy life more”
Retired from a high end job on massive pension, house paid off = “I hear things are bad for the young”
Etc
Sunak and Hunt are now taking the hard decisions necessary to cut the deficit before cutting taxes
(What happened to Stuart?)
Without reading it, I'd speculate that a probable absence of Hitler comparisons means that he is unlikely to have brought the BBC into disrepute.
When are you off to Australia with your ‘girlfriend’? Looking forward to your Oz political insights.
Forbes may be the most socially conservative and religious leadership contender of a main party leader since Ann Widdecombe in 2001 but she is entitled to express her views even if you disagree
A quarter of the *History* curriculum...
@Theuniondivvie has every right to point and laugh at me for not phrasing my own post very happily...
Edit - although actually, you would be surprised I think at how much English literature at A-level and GCSE is dominated by context now. That's a nice little earner in itself - providing all the information about the Tudors for Shakespeare, McCarthyism for the Crucible, Imperialism for Kipling, the Depression for Of Mice and Men...
In reality, most of the really bad stuff is already illegal anyway (see also laws about not torturing people, at least unless they are fully consenting adults), so any legislation is more likely to be used as a stick with which to beat Evangelical Christians for praying about stuff.
A row is brewing in Scotland, after a government-owned ferry service utilised a ‘tax loophole’ in Guernsey to reportedly avoid paying an estimated £35 million in National Insurance contributions.
CalMac Ferries is the main operator of vehicle ferries between Scotland and the islands on the west coast. It is wholly owned by the Scottish government.
It has been reported that the firm set up a subsidiary company in Guernsey called Caledonian MacBrayne Crewing. This company employs some 1,000 crew members and through this CalMac has been exempt from paying National Insurance contributions.
Ministers in Scotland have since been lambasted for allowing the scheme to exist, especially after CalMac received millions in covid support.
https://gsy.bailiwickexpress.com/gsy/news/scottish-ferry-service-avoids-tax-contributions-through-guernsey-loophole/#.ZBA0LezP1fU
I'm not even a particularly rabid unionist ffs. You and Stuart serve to confirm what PB Tories and their ilk think of Yes voters - blood and soil nationalists.
The requirement for A-level history is 20% *must* be British history. Also that one unit *must* cover a minimum 100 year time span (No, I have no idea who thought that was a good idea either) and overall the course must cover 200 years or more chronologically (which is actually quite a good idea).
I also get lots from Muslim countries anxious to know more about Christianity in RS because of the requirement it must reflect British religious traditions being 'broadly Christian.'
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/mar/14/the-disabled-villain-why-sensitivity-reading-cant-kill-off-this-ugly-trope
So yes it was potential slander
If so, could HY sue you?
Like so many things in the UK, the College system seems to involve starvation wages at the bottom to those doing the work and massive rewards at the top to those delivering the "strategy".
One day, I hope to work out how this massive scam manages to perpetuate itself
I could accuse KC of being an adulterer even though he is not (I am confident) cheating on his current wife.
If a man beats his wife, he will always be a wife beater.
Who do you believe? The social media gobshites? Perhaps Plato was right?
It's easy to attribute motives to people based on your perceptions of them. I'm no fan of Linekers and perhaps there's bias involved. I see a man who makes a fortune flogging crisps, and spouting football inanities. He might be a man who works unselfishly to make the world a better place, and supports many charities. I'm prepared to be convinced against my will, but social media is an unlikely source.
As YAB put it, "It happened". So we're back to the basics of defamation:
Is it true? SJ hasn't denied it, plenty have confirmed it
Is it honest opinion? Yes - breaking your wife's nose is "wife-beating". You only have to do it the one time
Is it a matter of Public Interest? Yes - he has been nominated for a Knighthood
Is it a matter of privilege? No
You said "way beyond the one allegation". The allegation is that he is a wife-beater. And he beat his wife. And you are defending him. You are defending wife-beating. The rights of wife-beaters not to have their reputation sullied when they are up for a Knighthood.
Can you see what they have reduced you to? Would you be defending any other man the same way who wasn't a prominent Tory? Lets say I had broken Mr's RPs nose. Put her in hospital. And someone on here called me a wife-beater. Would you be defending me?
"Way beyond the one allegation." Take a look in the sodding mirror and ask yourself why you once again are defending the indefensible.
The other advantage of school tutoring of course is that much of it is in the evening or weekend. OK, so if you're tutoring somebody in China it's in the morning, but this country or America (which is also good business) it's not. So you can do your undergraduate tutoring and lab hours in the day, and keep the college sweet, while making actually quite serious money doing online tutoring during the evenings.
Well, if you can, why wouldn't you? Living cheaply in a college property, perhaps? Maybe even no utility bills. Funding so you don't have to worry about living expenses. You can live a nice lifestyle and still have a decent chunk saved for when you leave and want to buy a house. Plus, if there's a delay in getting a job - which there usually isn't for Cambridge science doctors - you can survive very comfortably. Or just take a gap year and travel.
If the 'news does get out' and everyone does it, of course, that would reduce the premium somewhat though...
For some a middle ground is available, though I should think not in the most expensive areas to live in.
Most people I know should try harder to stop doing things rather than keep finding things to do.
What better time to start than Cheltenham week.
Any thoughts on Zanahiyr e/w as an outside possibility for the Champion Hurdle?
I didn't understand any of the article, so I'll sit this one out, but thank you for the insights (and for stepping up to write a header, rather than just whining about other people's)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11857317/Russia-sends-WOMEN-prisoners-Ukraine-war-zone-time.html
No men, no tanks, no ammo. That’s the position Putin’s got himself into at the moment.
i) If there's a surprise on the upside, well everyone is happy.
ii) The more uncertain the underlying variables the greater the range of forecasts possible - again see i) you'll want to tend to the low end.
iii) Low forecasts can always improve - revisions downward lead to ... questions.
iv) Crucially though - and this applies to pessimistic or optimistic forecasts it should be readily explainable WHY your original forecast was out.
'Politics is the ability to say what will happen next week, next month and next year.' (Pause) 'And of course the ability to explain afterwards why it didn't happen.'
Work beckons. Have a good morning.
It is an interesting thing though - we wouldn't call Leon a heroin addict,* would we? But a paedophile does tend to be called a paedophile for life - see e.g. reporting on Gary Glitter.
*I seem to recall that he has disclosed that he was, at one time, a heroin addict; apologies if I recall incorrectly, might have been Lady G or someone
[Something went wrong with the spacing there for some reason.]
Without commenting on Stanley Johnson in particular, if anyone has ever killed someone then they are a murderer. If anyone has ever beaten up their wife, they are a wife beater. Even if it was in the past, with a previous wife.
The wage differential I’m willing to accept does have limits, though, and speaking to colleagues I suspect we are currently beyond that limit.
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/a-simple-guide-to-the-roa/
An alcoholic will almost always describe himself as such though, even if he’s been sober for decades.
"It only happened once" is not a defence, but in general "innocent until proven guilty" does apply and from the sound of it there's been no conviction. But why? Especially if its not denied?
The social media pile on on her is disgraceful, Carol Vorderman in particular should know better.
Most league tables now use progress 8 (or attainment 8): average progress from KS2 to GCSE across 8 subjects for each student, with E & M double weighted. It’s a pretty good system (with some flaws that any such system will have)
Budget: Pensions to get boost as tax-free limit to rise
(I would drop the 40/45% tax relief to compensate, but I bet Hunt won't)
There are are two robust defences here. First justification (or “truth” as it now is). He’s admitted to breaking his ex-wife’s nose. So he’s an admitted* wife beater. It’s not up to the defendant to qualify. If a jockey threw a race years ago but has never thrown one since he’s still a cheat (that example comes from an actual case I was involved in as a trainee) and can be described so. The second defence is fair comment. There’s no prospect of a defamation here whatsoever. It would be struck out at the first hurdle
* Edited to confirm there has not been a conviction. Apologies.
Or that the Hundred Years War lasted 116 years?
1. Has a complaint been made?
2. If so do the police believe there is sufficient evidence
3. If so do the CPS wish to proceed with a prosecution
I'm not sure a complaint has been made. Which is a position that so many women find themselves in having been abused / assaulted. Point is that she has publicly stated that it happened and never mind a denial, we've had his friends confirm it happened.
So we're back to defamation. Which it isn't.
If you were to call someone a slanderer (implying it is a fundamental characteristic) then you are on thinner ice - need to be care you don’t get OGH into hot water.
Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it?
You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Only 6% of crimes reported to police lead to a charge or summons. Even more crimes are likely not reported in the first place.
It is sadly entirely normal for a wife beater to never be charged let alone convicted.