We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Fine with who? Scousers?
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
It's not fine. It's a public order offence. It's clearly a provocation of violence. Even before "cancel culture" entered the vocabulary you couldn't go round saying or displaying things that could provoke violence. This, for example, from the Public Order Act 1986 -
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
Some things you can't say.
I can see that the first bolded part would apply, but not the second.
Passing comment that not enough fans died at Hillsborough is hardly calling for more to be killed now, much less "immediately".
You’re missing the point. The words displayed simply have to “provoke the immediate use of violence by that person or another”. Walking round Golders Green, or anywhere else for that matter, celebrating the Holocaust would have got you arrested under this section in 1986. It’s like the old chestnut of shouting fire in a crowded cinema except that you know it’s going to start a fight.
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Fine with who? Scousers?
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
It's not fine. It's a public order offence. It's clearly a provocation of violence. Even before "cancel culture" entered the vocabulary you couldn't go round saying or displaying things that could provoke violence. This, for example, from the Public Order Act 1986 -
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
Some things you can't say.
I can see that the first bolded part would apply, but not the second.
Passing comment that not enough fans died at Hillsborough is hardly calling for more to be killed now, much less "immediately".
You’re missing the point. The words displayed simply have to “provoke the immediate use of violence by that person or another”. Walking round Golders Green, or anywhere else for that matter, celebrating the Holocaust would have got you arrested under this section in 1986. It’s like the old chestnut of shouting fire in a crowded cinema except that you know it’s going to start a fight.
Do you also think women should be arrested for wearing short skirts because it might provoke rape? What is the difference....answer is there is none the law needs to be abolished
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Fine with who? Scousers?
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
It's not fine. It's a public order offence. It's clearly a provocation of violence. Even before "cancel culture" entered the vocabulary you couldn't go round saying or displaying things that could provoke violence. This, for example, from the Public Order Act 1986 -
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
Some things you can't say.
That law is crap and patently so....I am a person I find people wearing clothes to be intimidating and abusive because god made us in her own image (as an example). Should therefore all clothes wearers be arrested. It is like too many of our laws, where the "victim" gets to define it as a crime and the police act on it. This is just supression of free speech by fuckwits
So you’d be fine with someone marching round with a t-shirt celebrating the murder of Lee Rigby? Or one saying that Jimmy Saville did nothing wrong?
We need to get rid of these stupid laws frankly, yes it is offensive but giving offence should not be a crime. Else we are up shit creek
Interesting how cancel culture here is fine.
Fine with who? Scousers?
A bit like that Grenfell bonfire thing, I don’t think the police should get involved.
It's not fine. It's a public order offence. It's clearly a provocation of violence. Even before "cancel culture" entered the vocabulary you couldn't go round saying or displaying things that could provoke violence. This, for example, from the Public Order Act 1986 -
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. (emphasis mine)
Some things you can't say.
That law is crap and patently so....I am a person I find people wearing clothes to be intimidating and abusive because god made us in her own image (as an example). Should therefore all clothes wearers be arrested. It is like too many of our laws, where the "victim" gets to define it as a crime and the police act on it. This is just supression of free speech by fuckwits
So you’d be fine with someone marching round with a t-shirt celebrating the murder of Lee Rigby? Or one saying that Jimmy Saville did nothing wrong?
Would it bother me yes, do I think it should be arrestable no. A lot of people for example walked around with free nelson mandela t shirts a convicted terrorist. No one batted an eyelid in the police. I don't like people wearing these things however I think there is a difference between being offended by it and making it arrestable because other people might do unlawful shit
British productivity has flatlined for 15 years. Longer really, since some of the previous growth was undoubtedly a financial bubble.
Currently, the country basically refuses to develop housing or infrastructure, and heavily penalises ambition. Energy prices are a massive tariff on British business, and have tripled since 2004. And so on.
You can see in this article both a thoroughgoing critique of the last x years of management, but also the likely seeds of criticism against the next Labour government.
Is this not what I have been saying for months, voting for more of the same whether tory, labour or lib dem isnt going to help. I get told I am angry and yes I am because the tribals keep telling me vote for their party when all they offer is the same old shit we had the last 4 decades.
The Bowman article is well worth reading and makes some valuable points but it misses what are very often the root causes of local objections to proposed developments.
There's a perception "NIMBYs" are opposed to any development anywhere and especially on anything green - that's not usually the case. What local people object to are developments which will create an unsupportable burden on pre-existing local infrastructures and networks without the developer making any compensatory effort to strengthen those networks in response.
This is about "soft" infrastructure rather than whether the sewage, water, electricity, wifi and other utility distribution infrastructures can cope or be enhanced to cope with the additional load. This is about provision of GPs, schools, shops, transport, places to go, eat, sit etc.
If you bring an extra 1,000 or more people into an area where will they go to see a GP? Answer - unless a new health centre is built, they'll run to the existing GP surgeries and overwhelm them. What about schools for the children and places for the elderly? As I see the new blocks going up near Plaistow, West Ham and Bow Road stations, my first thought is how many of these new people will want to use the tube and how overcrowded will the network become?
Planning and development needs to be not just about building houses but also about building new communities and strengthening existing communities, ensuring the standard of life and living for all is improved by and through development and it's not a licence for developers to print money.
I agree with this. But I also agree with his general critique of “vetocracy” Britain.
The question of productivity is one we've discussed on here many times before and it's not an easy subject on which to have a public discussion as it means saying some things which will be contentious.
The availability of cheap labour from 2004-05 onwards has been a huge factor in reducing productivity. When it is so much easier to bring in another pair of hands (and they don't cost much), why would you invest in automaton, why would you review business processes, why would you consider methods?
Why would you invest in a machine which washes cars when you can recruit half a dozen blokes to clean cars the old fashioned way? The machine can break down - if one of the blokes doesn't turn up, you can soon find someone else to do the work. The number of men waiting outside the local Wickes of a morning looking for cash-in-hand casual labour doesn't suggest we're going to get a handle on this any time soon.
The other fallacy is investing in computer systems would reduce staff counts and make those who remain more productive - no - most computer systems are badly implemented and become constipated with information most of which is never used, accessed, analysed or available.
Just a note on computers. I've actually worked on an HR migration project that involved working with HR staff, who had received compulsory redundancy notices, on automating their HR processes. And then we also trained the surviving staff on how to keep the new system working. A bit brutal really, but the idea that you wouldn't need vast legions of extra employees if you got rid of computers simply doesn't survive a moment's scrutiny.
That doesn't mean that computers aren't incredibly annoying to work with, and it always feels like working with them is a series of frustrating challenges that needlessly slow you down, but spend a day working with a paper-based archive and then tell me that computers don't improve productivity. Or maybe several days, as you'll probably have to travel to the archive site to start with.
Comments
That doesn't mean that computers aren't incredibly annoying to work with, and it always feels like working with them is a series of frustrating challenges that needlessly slow you down, but spend a day working with a paper-based archive and then tell me that computers don't improve productivity. Or maybe several days, as you'll probably have to travel to the archive site to start with.