Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
and fix the bloody roads whilst the sun shines, fill in the bloody potholes, repaint faded lane and other markings
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
However, it's ultimately why the Conservatives are in trouble next time; even if Hunt can make the economic numbers work, he has neither the cash nor the time to stop everything looking shabby. And that's part of what's so deflating right now.
Starmer might actually get that better than his predecessors- not interested in changing the world, but keen on making the footpath to the shops safer and nicer for Mrs Groggins to walk along. Old fashioned municipal socialism of the sort that Corbyn and his acolytes seemed to think was beneath them.
Fixing everything properly might be the work of a generation- part of the art for the next government (whoever they are) is going to be to spend what they have in as impactful a way as possible. (And some of it might need to be superficial stuff like the Network Southeast red lampposts- not important but somehow showing that improvements were on the way.)
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
IIRC someone did a some archeology of what people dd "back in the day" to improve drainage. Again, IIRC, it was often of the form of dredging the *middle* of the river deeper. Which left the banks, with most wildlife, fish etc alone. And improved navigation.
Is that right?
The utility of river dredging is pretty limited and only really works in very slow flowing (natural-ish) rivers with little volume. Anything faster flowing (like the Lugg) will be self-scouring.
Larger banked drains were usually designed with sufficient gradient to move the silt although obviously when you get down to field drain size they do need clearing if you want to continue with land drainage. There's also a risk of undermining artificial embankments if you over-deepen large channels.
Obviously major shipping routes get dredged but that's a totally different animal. Keeping the entrance to the Humber clear is a constant battle against shifting sands and silt and pretty much a year-round occupation.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Corbyn tried to talk about problems with bus services. It didn't go well with the political pundits.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Use However, it's ultimately why the Conservatives are in trouble next time; even if Hunt can make the economic numbers work, he has neither the cash nor the time to stop everything looking shabby. And that's part of what's so deflating right now.
Starmer might actually get that better than his predecessors- not interested in changing the world, but keen on making the footpath to the shops safer and nicer for Mrs Groggins to walk along. Old fashioned municipal socialism of the sort that Corbyn and his acolytes seemed to think was beneath them.
Fixing everything properly might be the work of a generation- part of the art for the next government (whoever they are) is going to be to spend what they have in as impactful a way as possible. (And some of it might need to be superficial stuff like the Network Southeast red lampposts- not important but somehow showing that improvements were on the way.)
Superficial stuff can be surprisingly effective
in a street near me a couple of people started putting out hanging baskets of flowers. Then a couple more people did it. Then a few more. Suddenly the whole street looked brighter, happier. More prosperous. People are warier of dropping litter in clean neat streets, as it is more conspicuous. So the good vibes meant less litter, as well
It actually doesn’t take much to improve things, human nature will do the work, but someone has to START
And Rudy Giuliani was of course right about broken windows, before he went mad
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
They need to change the ministerial code again so that an allegation of being 'intimidating', even if proven, is not career ending. There needs to be a way of holding ministers to account for this type of situation without instant dismissal. You couldn't sack a civil servant for that type of allegation, even if proven, it should be no different for ministers.
Quite so
It is also an invitation to politically motivated civil servants to bring down ministers they dislike - with mere and subjective allegations. And they can do it anonymously. Not good
That's a clueless comment, not even worthy of the Spectator. More Unherd, or Matt Goodwin. I thought you were brighter than that.
@Northern_Al Can you go through the report and find the part that identifies the behaviour that is so outrageously unacceptable it justifies his immediate departure from government.
It really is a question you should ask Dominic Raab.
The report didn't say he should be sacked or should resign - that was outside its remit. If sources can be believed Sunak didn't tell him to go.
I've never heard so much whinging and whining on behalf of someone who is so clearly entirely responsible for his own downfall.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
The good causes money from the Lottery did quite a lot for small, community level projects.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
I asked “apart from the disputed example of Raab”. So your answer would be no ?
As far as Raab himself is concerned, you can look back to the beginning if the thread to see why my conclusion is diametrically opposed to yours. FWIW.
You need to read your not so smoking gun passage in the context of the several pages of caveats at the beginning of the report.
We’re unlikely to agree on the point, but I’ll ask again what other instances do you have for your assertion about low level officials having the power to bring down a minister on the basis of unsubstantiated allegati9ns ?
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Corbyn tried to talk about problems with bus services. It didn't go well with the political pundits.
Rhetoric needs to be about grand visions, soaring hopes and inspiration.
Actually getting things done to fulfil that vision is often going to be about small details, marginal gains and boring minutiae.
Just popped in because I thought there'd be a few people interested in the bonkers old monorail in Listowel, County Kerry, that will be celebrating the centenary of its commercial closure next year.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
No he gave a good outline of what lib dems will claim to be for if it gets them an extra vote but everyone knows they will be for something completely different when the vote is counted.....points at the coalition years and student fees
Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.
Does anyone else sense a double standard?
I was struck by that this morning, listening to the latest news report regarding OFSTED. They appear to assume they are immune from any responsibility for the results of their actions.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Starmer in another life could have been a reasonably competent if dull county or London borough councillor, maybe even risen to head of highways. Good at getting potholes and pavements fixed.
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
Keir Starmer is getting the traditional mountain of shit dealt out to every Labour leader. He’s properly arrived.
You keep saying this.
You think every new Labour leader is unfairly treated?
No, every Labour leader in my lifetime has been subject to an onslaught of character assassination, slight, slur and innuendo.
To be fair, Conservative leaders have also been subject to the same and in some cases worse.
The difference seems to be the Labour leader is vilified the moment he becomes leader, for the Conservative leader or Prime Minister the onslaught starts when they are perceived by the Conservative media to have failed, to have become a loser or if they are insufficiently “Conservative” (whatever that means).
I see little difference in the abuse handed out by so-called comedians to Conservatives and the abuse handed out by so-called journalists to Labour.
Keir Starmer is getting the traditional mountain of shit dealt out to every Labour leader. He’s properly arrived.
You keep saying this.
You think every new Labour leader is unfairly treated?
No, every Labour leader in my lifetime has been subject to an onslaught of character assassination, slight, slur and innuendo.
To be fair, Conservative leaders have also been subject to the same and in some cases worse.
The difference seems to be the Labour leader is vilified the moment he becomes leader, for the Conservative leader or Prime Minister the onslaught starts when they are perceived by the Conservative media to have failed, to have become a loser or if they are insufficiently “Conservative” (whatever that means).
I see little difference in the abuse handed out by so-called comedians to Conservatives and the abuse handed out by so-called journalists to Labour.
Who do you think the general populace takes more notice of....journalists or comedians? Given the printed press is thankfully dying I would say the latter
Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.
Does anyone else sense a double standard?
I was struck by that this morning, listening to the latest news report regarding OFSTED. They appear to assume they are immune from any responsibility for the results of their actions.
They are the Guardians
Read the Republic to realise how stupid the idea is. To the point that some philosophers resort to the "Plato was being sarcastic" excuse.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Starmer in another life could have been a reasonably competent if dull county or London borough councillor, maybe even risen to head of highways. Good at getting potholes and pavements fixed.
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
I'll grant you charisma, but drive?
Drive?
Conisder where he started, and what he's already achieved in his career. That doesn't happen without drive.
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
This aspect of Major's govt is often overlooked. A fascinating character if looked at obliquely - a bookie's runner without a degree who rose to high achievement and office, a tall and genuinely attractive man who had an affair with Edwina Currie and yet remained married, and a Prime Minister for nearly seven years, beating Cameron, May and Johnson and only three months less than Macmillan in that regard - he is for some insane reason thought of as a dork. His introduction of the cones hotline, although ridiculed, introduced the concept of public feedback to public services, and things like passenger compensation for late trains, the Ministry of Culture and the National Lottery show a desire to make life better for people in the small ways that make a difference. He is really underrated.
Seems like he knowingly broke the law, not for the first time, and so has been punished.
Do you believe the laws set too high a sentence for breaking them, or that if someone has good intentions they should not be punished, or do you think his actions were so bad he deserved more punishment?
I'm a fan of fewer custodial sentences generally myself.
It did not deserve 12 months in prison.
It is clear that the man had reason to believe that there was a danger of flooding. One doesn't spend good money and a lot of time dredging a river for fun, unless insane - which would have precluded a prison sentence. The relevant agencies should have stepped in and dredged the river, which they could have done their own way, with the relevant environmental safeguards in place. It seems that they didn't do their job.
That’s a load of balls. He’d previously dammed the river illegally for his own convenience. He’s not mad; just a scofflaw arsehole.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
I don't think I know what the Lib Dems are for except PR, Eurofederalism, and saying entirely contradictory things in different places - and always sanctimoniously.
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
This aspect of Major's govt is often overlooked. A fascinating character if looked at obliquely - a bookie's runner without a degree who rose to high achievement and office, a tall and genuinely attractive man who had an affair with Edwina Currie and yet remained married, and a Prime Minister for nearly seven years, beating Cameron, May and Johnson and only three months less than Macmillan in that regard - he is for some insane reason thought of as a dork. His introduction of the cones hotline, although ridiculed, introduced the concept of public feedback to public services, and things like passenger compensation for late trains, the Ministry of Culture and the National Lottery show a desire to make life better for people in the small ways that make a difference. He is really underrated.
Major was a decent man apart from the Currie incident who genuinely did the best with a difficult hand and left a growing economy for New Labour. He also won the Gulf War with Bush 41 and paved the way for the Good Friday Agreement in NI.
He was no Churchill or Thatcher or Blair but certainly we have had worse PMs
My understanding is that Scottish courts take a very strict line on contempt of court issues. Not only that but people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland could be prosecuted for such things. Pre-devolution this may not have mattered much. But who are the Scottish courts now accountable to? If it is the Scottish government then it would appear that such actions would amount to extra-territorial jurisdiction would they not?
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
I don't think Starmer has any charm, but I do think he's way more interesting than Sunak, both his backstory and what he's done in life.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Starmer in another life could have been a reasonably competent if dull county or London borough councillor, maybe even risen to head of highways. Good at getting potholes and pavements fixed.
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
If you get to the stage where you are accusing Starmer of lacking drive, I have some straws that you might enjoy clutching.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
If you've invested to own property, and you've taken on the risks and liabilities of doing so, then my starting position would be that it's yours to do with as you please.
I think free societies depend on this, as does wider economic prosperity.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
All of which is why there is law dating back to the Normans (and beyond) about mucking about with rivers - fiddle with them and you are effecting lots of people downstream.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Starmer in another life could have been a reasonably competent if dull county or London borough councillor, maybe even risen to head of highways. Good at getting potholes and pavements fixed.
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
Perhaps he could even have become Director of Public Prosecutions ...
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
I don't think I know what the Lib Dems are for except PR, Eurofederalism, and saying entirely contradictory things in different places - and always sanctimoniously.
No thanks.
Nimbyism when it wins them votes in southern England
Keir Starmer is getting the traditional mountain of shit dealt out to every Labour leader. He’s properly arrived.
You keep saying this.
You think every new Labour leader is unfairly treated?
No, every Labour leader in my lifetime has been subject to an onslaught of character assassination, slight, slur and innuendo.
To be fair, Conservative leaders have also been subject to the same and in some cases worse.
The difference seems to be the Labour leader is vilified the moment he becomes leader, for the Conservative leader or Prime Minister the onslaught starts when they are perceived by the Conservative media to have failed, to have become a loser or if they are insufficiently “Conservative” (whatever that means).
I see little difference in the abuse handed out by so-called comedians to Conservatives and the abuse handed out by so-called journalists to Labour.
I think that's just politics. You can't expect a free pass.
Also, I have little time for excusing defeats by blaming the press. There a million ways to communicate with the British electorate, and they don't all read newspapers.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Starmer in another life could have been a reasonably competent if dull county or London borough councillor, maybe even risen to head of highways. Good at getting potholes and pavements fixed.
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
Perhaps he could even have become Director of Public Prosecutions ...
Which still might make him suitable to be Home Secretary or Justice Secretary, PM is a different league
Keir Starmer is getting the traditional mountain of shit dealt out to every Labour leader. He’s properly arrived.
You keep saying this.
You think every new Labour leader is unfairly treated?
No, every Labour leader in my lifetime has been subject to an onslaught of character assassination, slight, slur and innuendo.
To be fair, Conservative leaders have also been subject to the same and in some cases worse.
The difference seems to be the Labour leader is vilified the moment he becomes leader, for the Conservative leader or Prime Minister the onslaught starts when they are perceived by the Conservative media to have failed, to have become a loser or if they are insufficiently “Conservative” (whatever that means).
I see little difference in the abuse handed out by so-called comedians to Conservatives and the abuse handed out by so-called journalists to Labour.
Who do you think the general populace takes more notice of....journalists or comedians? Given the printed press is thankfully dying I would say the latter
I can't say I pay the slightest bit of attention to what comedians and actors say about politics.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Framed right, he might even sell it to the Guardian. The Mail, unlikely.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Starmer in another life could have been a reasonably competent if dull county or London borough councillor, maybe even risen to head of highways. Good at getting potholes and pavements fixed.
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
Perhaps he could even have become Director of Public Prosecutions ...
Which still might make him suitable to be Home Secretary or Justice Secretary, PM is a different league
The dizzy heights of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, eh?
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
I don't think I know what the Lib Dems are for except PR, Eurofederalism, and saying entirely contradictory things in different places - and always sanctimoniously.
No thanks.
What the is the consistent thread running through the last decade of Toryism ? Other than a desire to protect the wealthy.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
I don't think I know what the Lib Dems are for except PR, Eurofederalism, and saying entirely contradictory things in different places - and always sanctimoniously.
No thanks.
What the is the consistent thread running through the last decade of Toryism ? Other than a desire to protect the wealthy.
If that is so why are the minimum wage, state pension and benefits all up 10%?
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Starmer in another life could have been a reasonably competent if dull county or London borough councillor, maybe even risen to head of highways. Good at getting potholes and pavements fixed.
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
Perhaps he could even have become Director of Public Prosecutions ...
Which still might make him suitable to be Home Secretary or Justice Secretary, PM is a different league
The dizzy heights of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, eh?
Boris at least had the charisma and presence to be PM and also delivered Brexit and the vaccines and won a landslide victory in 2019
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
I would suggest the latter. For both prosperity and the stability of the country property rights are one of the most important cornerstones.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
Thanks (and sorry for a slow response - kids bedtime). That makes a lot of sense.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
I don't think I know what the Lib Dems are for except PR, Eurofederalism, and saying entirely contradictory things in different places - and always sanctimoniously.
No thanks.
What the is the consistent thread running through the last decade of Toryism ? Other than a desire to protect the wealthy.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
If you've invested to own property, and you've taken on the risks and liabilities of doing so, then my starting position would be that it's yours to do with as you please.
I think free societies depend on this, as does wider economic prosperity.
Does it depend on where you get the money from to invest? I agree with you in the case of eg an entrepreneur who has got rich from inventing a widget that others benefit from. I disagree in the case of, say, inherited wealth.
And how would you compare the risks of property investment with, say, the risks of a zero hours contract?
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
I don't think I know what the Lib Dems are for except PR, Eurofederalism, and saying entirely contradictory things in different places - and always sanctimoniously.
No thanks.
What the is the consistent thread running through the last decade of Toryism ? Other than a desire to protect the wealthy.
The consistent thread running through the last decade of Toryism is that they make people poorer, through their policies of austerity, Brexit and poor economic handling of the Covid epidemic. It is remarkably consistent.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
Water companies: absolutely right
Maybe one thing Labour might do is clean up the country. I am tired of the litter. Tired of the sewage
If they will bring in the death penalty for graffiti they will have my vote.
But I'm not sure I've never really seen 'not living in a shithole' as a Labour priority. Odd, because you'd have thought if there were a subject for some public spirited hectoring, litter and graffiti might be it.
Yes. It is deeply frustrating. This is PRECISELY what Labour should be about. Making daily life for ordinary Brits that bit better, day by day. Things like litter and graffiti and flytipping and disused phone kiosks and sewage in rivers and stopping bike theft and all the rest of it may not be exciting geopolitics, its not Palestine or the Ukraine, but it is stuff that could sincerely change lives and much of it would not break the budget. It simply needs dedication. And effort. And thought
Sweat the small stuff. Fix the broken windows. Clean the beaches. I’d vote for a Labour Party that spoke seriously about these apparently minor things, because over time they would make major differences to British life
You have just given us a very good outline of what Lib Dems are for, Mr Leon.. All that, and trying to bring back a fairer kind of society....
But that’s it. That’s part of the problem. These “minor” issues are seen as Lib Dem issues, and the Lib Dems are a relatively minor party who will not be the government
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
Reminds me a bit of some of the stuff John Major tried to do- he had some experience of the worm's eye view in his life story, which helped him take the minor niggles seriously. Some of what JM did even worked.
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
Starmer is already seen as boring. So he’d be making a virtue of necessity. Keir “Pot hole fixer” Starmer
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
Starmer in another life could have been a reasonably competent if dull county or London borough councillor, maybe even risen to head of highways. Good at getting potholes and pavements fixed.
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
Perhaps he could even have become Director of Public Prosecutions ...
Which still might make him suitable to be Home Secretary or Justice Secretary, PM is a different league
The dizzy heights of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, eh?
Boris at least had the charisma and presence to be PM and also delivered Brexit and the vaccines and won a landslide victory in 2019
Behaving like a third rate clown is not necessarily a sign of being charismatic. And delivering Brexit badly is not necessarily a badge of honour.
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
I don't get this. Some ultra-libertarian that people can do whatever the hell they like with their land?
In principle, I have sympathy with that, but that right does sometimes need to be qualified and restricted* where it impinges on the common good.
How is this different from the Left?
We do it the other way round. We start from a presumption in favour of private property rights, and then work back from that if we need to do so.
(*Incidentally, I think rivers/oceans are underprotected and badgers/foxes overprotected, FWIW)
What’s the logic of starting from a presumption of property rights? Is it a moral case (those property rights are naturally derived, it tend to be in the hands of those most deserving, for instance) or a pragmatic case (preserving property rights is important for prosperity, say). I’m genuinely interested.
If you've invested to own property, and you've taken on the risks and liabilities of doing so, then my starting position would be that it's yours to do with as you please.
I think free societies depend on this, as does wider economic prosperity.
Does it depend on where you get the money from to invest? I agree with you in the case of eg an entrepreneur who has got rich from inventing a widget that others benefit from. I disagree in the case of, say, inherited wealth.
And how would you compare the risks of property investment with, say, the risks of a zero hours contract?
Again, genuine questions, not loaded.
The risks of property investment are that, in extremis, you can lose your shirt.
Zero hours contracts aren't always fun - although bear in mind many people do choose them and like the flexibility - but you can quit at any time.
Completely off topic, but I thought what I saw on my walk to get groceries this morning would interest some of you:
I shop more at a local QFC (a subsidiary of Kroger) than anywhere else. The most direct walk there takes me 10 short blocks north, and then northeast across a large park.
In those 10 blocks I saw people gathering at the Iman Center for an EID* celebration, a Presbyterian church, which holds services in both English and Chinese, a Unitarian church that also hosts a Jewish meeting, behind that a Baptist church, and further along, a 100 year old Episcopalian Church.
I am mildly disappointed that there are no Hindu or Buddhist gathering places along the route. But the Unitarians do have a sign asking us to support the Duwamish tribe, who probably have a religion of their own.
(*Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity? Probably not, since they made no effort to include me.)
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
No. I know people like this guy, As @Burgessian says, they actually get a perverse thrill from saying Fuck off I can cut down all the trees I like, it’s my land, even when that is legally untrue. Moreover, he’s been doing this since the 1990s, as the report shows. And the River Lugg on a fine summer’s day is - was? - one of the world’s heavenly places
He’s lucky he hasn’t gone to jail sooner. And it’s clear that jail is the only thing that will stop his vandalism. Throw him in a cell and somehow lose the key
It probably needed dredging.
Ah, so it's good intentions that matter.
Sounds like he may not have done a very good job dredging it and did unnecessary damage, which is presumably why proper permission is needed in the first place, so does that count against his purported good intentions?
When Extinction Rebellion block an ambulance during one of their road protests is there not a need to do it to convince the country to stop taking actions which damange the climate? In their eyes the answer is yes, just as much as this chap.
I am sure the people who avoided being knee deep in river water are quite satisfied with the job he did.
So you believe people can break the law if it is popular then? That'd be quite the step from believing the sentence is simply excessive.
I believe that when someone has taken the job of a Government agency (more often it is the police) into their own hands, it is an opportunity to ask why, as well as mete out a proportionate punishment.
The job of the Environment Agency is not to destroy habitats and dump sediment in a heavily protected river.
If you want to reduce the flood level then fix the uplands, but ultimately, if you build in a flood plain, you are going to flood. Live with it or move.
If you want every river to be reduced to a pumped drain with very little wildlife, then you aren't going to be popular. I suppose you could move to the Flatlands here and build a monument to Cornelius Vermuyden.
What you could definitely argue is that water companies should be treated in the same manner.
This is exactly the eco-extremist bollocks of which I speak. Your pearl-clutching over 'dumping sediment' - ie moving some mud, is risible. Dredging is necessary river maintenance - if the level of the river bank keeps rising, it'll flood more. It isn't rocket science. The fact you'd rather people lost their homes than do this is disgraceful. But then floods are part of the mood music of the climate catastrophe.
Comments
Starmer might actually get that better than his predecessors- not interested in changing the world, but keen on making the footpath to the shops safer and nicer for Mrs Groggins to walk along. Old fashioned municipal socialism of the sort that Corbyn and his acolytes seemed to think was beneath them.
Fixing everything properly might be the work of a generation- part of the art for the next government (whoever they are) is going to be to spend what they have in as impactful a way as possible. (And some of it might need to be superficial stuff like the Network Southeast red lampposts- not important but somehow showing that improvements were on the way.)
Larger banked drains were usually designed with sufficient gradient to move the silt although obviously when you get down to field drain size they do need clearing if you want to continue with land drainage. There's also a risk of undermining artificial embankments if you over-deepen large channels.
Obviously major shipping routes get dredged but that's a totally different animal. Keeping the entrance to the Humber clear is a constant battle against shifting sands and silt and pretty much a year-round occupation.
I’d like to see a major Labour figure - preferably Starmer - get up and make a proper speech dedicated entirely to these things. These apparently trivial niggles which, taken together, degrade our daily lives in multiple ways. Talk about it seriously, come up with ideas for fixing them, tell us how and when they will do it
It would be pleasantly surprising maybe even a bit inspiring. No it won’t fix poverty or cure cancer or solve climate change, but it will be practical and uplifting - and do-able. I’d vote for it
But damn hard to talk about in an inspiring speech. A shame, because it would do a lot of good.
in a street near me a couple of people started putting out hanging baskets of flowers. Then a couple more people did it. Then a few more. Suddenly the whole street looked brighter, happier. More prosperous. People are warier of dropping litter in clean neat streets, as it is more conspicuous. So the good vibes meant less litter, as well
It actually doesn’t take much to improve things, human nature will do the work, but someone has to START
And Rudy Giuliani was of course right about broken windows, before he went mad
I bet it would be popular, even if the Guardian and the Mail would sneer (for different reasons)
The report didn't say he should be sacked or should resign - that was outside its remit. If sources can be believed Sunak didn't tell him to go.
I've never heard so much whinging and whining on behalf of someone who is so clearly entirely responsible for his own downfall.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1649483594694381576
what a foul up.
As far as Raab himself is concerned, you can look back to the beginning if the thread to see why my conclusion is diametrically opposed to yours. FWIW.
You need to read your not so smoking gun passage in the context of the several pages of caveats at the beginning of the report.
We’re unlikely to agree on the point, but I’ll ask again what other instances do you have for your assertion about low level officials having the power to bring down a minister on the basis of unsubstantiated allegati9ns ?
Actually getting things done to fulfil that vision is often going to be about small details, marginal gains and boring minutiae.
Just popped in because I thought there'd be a few people interested in the bonkers old monorail in Listowel, County Kerry, that will be celebrating the centenary of its commercial closure next year.
https://www.lartiguemonorail.com/
However as PM of the UK you need a bit more than that, some charisma and drive which he lacks
To be fair, Conservative leaders have also been subject to the same and in some cases worse.
The difference seems to be the Labour leader is vilified the moment he becomes leader, for the Conservative leader or Prime Minister the onslaught starts when they are perceived by the Conservative media to have failed, to have become a loser or if they are insufficiently “Conservative” (whatever that means).
I see little difference in the abuse handed out by so-called comedians to Conservatives and the abuse handed out by so-called journalists to Labour.
Read the Republic to realise how stupid the idea is. To the point that some philosophers resort to the "Plato was being sarcastic" excuse.
Drive?
Conisder where he started, and what he's already achieved in his career. That doesn't happen without drive.
He’d previously dammed the river illegally for his own convenience. He’s not mad; just a scofflaw arsehole.
I would not go as far as the Propertarian wing of Libertarianism which goes beyond the basic rights not to have your property taken off you but goes on to advocate that you have the right to do whatever the hell you want - up to and including murder on your own property. That is simply lunacy but it is a strain of thought that exists and has its strong advocates. But I would agree that it is extremely difficult to have a stable society without some basic property rights.
In the case of the farmer, we have started from the basis of property rights and then moderated them for the good of others. Those saying he was preventing flooding actually have it 180 degrees the wrong way round. By dredging and cutting down trees he was preventing flooding on uninhabited flood plain and increasing the risk of flooding downstream where people actually have homes because he was increasing the flow across his land.
If he believed so strongly that the law was wrong he should have advocated and campaigned to get it changed or modified, not simply broken it. I happen to think many of the tax laws in this country are wrong. I will happily campaign and advocate for changes. But as long as they are the laws I am going to abide by them rather than thinking they uniquely should not apply to me.
No thanks.
Bush 41 and paved the way for the Good Friday Agreement in NI.
He was no Churchill or Thatcher or Blair but certainly we have had worse PMs
My understanding is that Scottish courts take a very strict line on contempt of court issues. Not only that but people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland could be prosecuted for such things. Pre-devolution this may not have mattered much. But who are the Scottish courts now accountable to? If it is the Scottish government then it would appear that such actions would amount to extra-territorial jurisdiction would they not?
ETA: Stuart got there before me, as per usual.
I think free societies depend on this, as does wider economic prosperity.
Also, I have little time for excusing defeats by blaming the press. There a million ways to communicate with the British electorate, and they don't all read newspapers.
If you lose, face up to it and own it.
The Mail, unlikely.
NEW THREAD
Other than a desire to protect the wealthy.
If it’s the pragmatic case (which I agree wholeheartedly with), it then seems highly desirable to moderate property rights because of their tendency to exacerbate inequality.
Specifically, if the case for property rights are that they are essential to prosperity, it is consistent with that to have a strong presumption that those who benefit from the wealth generated by those rights should
share that wealth. If they aren’t morally deserving of the extra wealth, but nevertheless keep a large proportion of it, as is currently the case, then forced redistribution through high taxes seems the best answer.
And how would you compare the risks of property investment with, say, the risks of a zero hours contract?
Again, genuine questions, not loaded.
Zero hours contracts aren't always fun - although bear in mind many people do choose them and like the flexibility - but you can quit at any time.
I shop more at a local QFC (a subsidiary of Kroger) than anywhere else. The most direct walk there takes me 10 short blocks north, and then northeast across a large park.
In those 10 blocks I saw people gathering at the Iman Center for an EID* celebration, a Presbyterian church, which holds services in both English and Chinese, a Unitarian church that also hosts a Jewish meeting, behind that a Baptist church, and further along, a 100 year old Episcopalian Church.
I am mildly disappointed that there are no Hindu or Buddhist gathering places along the route. But the Unitarians do have a sign asking us to support the Duwamish tribe, who probably have a religion of their own.
(*Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity? Probably not, since they made no effort to include me.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/22/inside-the-collapse-of-ron-desantis-presidential-campaign/