"Investigate all thefts" will backfire on the Tories given the amount of time the police will spend tracking down stolen bicycles.
Absolutely not, for the victims of cycle theft their crime is as significant as any other.
Indeed in some villages cycle theft may be the biggest crime
It will backfire because: a) the expectation is set that the police will "investigate all thefts" b) in practice the police can't investigate most thefts because there aren't enough police officers or interest from the CPS c) every single local crime will be WHY HASN'T MY MP STOPPED THIS?
I think a crackdown on petty criminality is a great idea. Genuinely. But to do that you need to resource the shit out of it. And the government just want to shit on it, which despite the similarity in the crayon drawing of a policy isn't the same thing at all.
Its the same problem as STOP THE BOATS. Easy to draw with your red crayon, harder to do when you don't fund adequate people to actually stop them.
The agenda is what the public want, at the end of the day most people are far more likely to be victims of theft than murder or rape of even sexual assault.
So the police should focus more on the former as well as the latter
We both agree this is what the public want. We both agree this is what the public need. Where we disagree is that you think the police and the courts are properly funded and I do not. My disbelief is based on facts, your belief is based on...?
Obviously he gets it from reading too many right-wing thinktank reports which, he helpfully explains, are written by people who can't get pbulished in proper academic journals which have nasty woke leftie things like refereeing and quality control.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
Braverman is a special blend of dishonest, incompetent and outright nasty. She clearly shouldn't be in charge of anything - personally I wouldn't employ her at all - but there she is!
Hopefully an electoral tsunami will sweep her into the dustbin of history by 2024.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
No it didn't. I was waiting for you to pop up with that.
In fact subsequent sudies showed that crime rates in Califormia started dropping significantly 2 years before the Three-Strikes Law was brought in and corresponded with a large drop in both alcohol consumption and unemployment.
You mean I had the audacity to point to an academic study whilst you were relying on the oh so much more reliable newspaper opinion columns. Lordy I should be more rigorous next time.
So Trump’s lawyer tells FOX her client “knows all the facts” and doesn’t need time to prep for the coup trial — while his other lawyer says he needs till April 2026 because it’s so complex. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1696117179421270444
This is going to be Trump's problem. In a criminal trial, you don't get to contradict yourself on a regular basis without consequences. His entire life has not prepared him for that lesson.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I agree, I saw nothing wrong. He got a bit exuberant at winning the world cup. Pathetic witchunt by a bunch of woke arseholes. He is not stupid , if he wanted to assault her he would not have done it on the podium on live TV at a World Cup Final.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I was reading an article the other day saying Spain hasn't had its MeToo moment like the UK and USA did in 2017, perhaps this will kickstart that movement in Spain.
Hopefully not , why would anyone want them to be as pathetic as UK and USA where any scrote can ruin someone for nothing. Look for real criminals
Braverman is a special blend of dishonest, incompetent and outright nasty. She clearly shouldn't be in charge of anything - personally I wouldn't employ her at all - but there she is!
Hopefully an electoral tsunami will sweep her into the dustbin of history by 2024.
These 'nasty' policies could be avoided entirely if we abolished the right to asylum and instead made it discretionary.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I agree, I saw nothing wrong. He got a bit exuberant at winning the world cup. Pathetic witchunt by a bunch of woke arseholes. He is not stupid , if he wanted to assault her he would not have done it on the podium on live TV at a World Cup Final.
He did assault her. He did it because he didn't think there was any issue doing so, because to some people women don't need to consent. Now he's threatening her, for having the audacity of speaking up and saying she didn't consent.
That's not stupidity, its arrogance. And its not woke to think women have the right to say no.
On education, whatever the structure, keeping the feral scum out of the same classroom as the kids who actually want to learn is key.
My class contained the 30 brightest and best in the year. The disruptive scrotes were kept well away from us and we were able to receive a good education at a bog standard comprehensive.
Then in 6th form we had the further benefit of small cohorts, as there weren't that many of us doing A Levels.
I do wonder if the ‘Reverse Grammar School” is the better idea.
Take the bottom 15% out of the system, and teach them electrics, plumbing, metalwork, and basic accounting.
It's a hyper-kerning abomination. The French AAE logo is chic and the USAF logo is modern and sleek with just a hint of sci-fi fascism. The Russian one looks like it came out of a Christmas cracker and the Italian one is like something out of Game of Thrones. Overall, France wins.
"Investigate all thefts" will backfire on the Tories given the amount of time the police will spend tracking down stolen bicycles.
Because tracking down stolen bicycles is exactly what many people think the police should be doing.
I'll never forget the time my friend had her phone stolen, she went to the police station to say my phone has been stolen and thanks to find my iPhone I know exactly where it is.
The police response was 'here's your crime reference number, claim on your insurance, we won't go to the address you've provided.'
My daughter got mugged getting out of her car and she picked out teh culprits from mugshots. When she phoned re progress the police said tehy could do nothing as the well known neds would not agree to make an appointment for police to vist their houses so they had to drop it.
"Investigate all thefts" will backfire on the Tories given the amount of time the police will spend tracking down stolen bicycles.
Because tracking down stolen bicycles is exactly what many people think the police should be doing.
I'll never forget the time my friend had her phone stolen, she went to the police station to say my phone has been stolen and thanks to find my iPhone I know exactly where it is.
The police response was 'here's your crime reference number, claim on your insurance, we won't go to the address you've provided.'
My daughter got mugged getting out of her car and she picked out teh culprits from mugshots. When she phoned re progress the police said tehy could do nothing as the well known neds would not agree to make an appointment for police to vist their houses so they had to drop it.
On education, whatever the structure, keeping the feral scum out of the same classroom as the kids who actually want to learn is key.
My class contained the 30 brightest and best in the year. The disruptive scrotes were kept well away from us and we were able to receive a good education at a bog standard comprehensive.
Then in 6th form we had the further benefit of small cohorts, as there weren't that many of us doing A Levels.
I do wonder if the ‘Reverse Grammar School” is the better idea.
Take the bottom 15% out of the system, and teach them electrics, plumbing, metalwork, and basic accounting.
It's a hyper-kerning abomination. The French AAE logo is chic and the USAF logo is modern and sleek with just a hint of sci-fi fascism. The Russian one looks like it came out of a Christmas cracker and the Italian one is like something out of Game of Thrones. Overall, France wins.
On education, whatever the structure, keeping the feral scum out of the same classroom as the kids who actually want to learn is key.
My class contained the 30 brightest and best in the year. The disruptive scrotes were kept well away from us and we were able to receive a good education at a bog standard comprehensive.
Then in 6th form we had the further benefit of small cohorts, as there weren't that many of us doing A Levels.
I do wonder if the ‘Reverse Grammar School” is the better idea.
Take the bottom 15% out of the system, and teach them electrics, plumbing, metalwork, and basic accounting.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
Why is there a debate over this ?
The woman involved said she did not consent. Had Rubiales apologised, it might have ended there. That he refuses to do so is a very clear demonstration that he's in the wrong.
It's certainly a bizarre level of stubborness. Just for a moment let's say she did consent and for some reason lied about it, sticking it out might be understandable but wouldn't work since he'd never prove she was doing so, and so he would lose, if unfairly in that scenario too (which is not very plausible in any case).
Britain has a better branding industry than any of those others, so it’s actually a surprise the Royal Airforce has ended up with such a hideous typeface.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I agree, I saw nothing wrong. He got a bit exuberant at winning the world cup. Pathetic witchunt by a bunch of woke arseholes. He is not stupid , if he wanted to assault her he would not have done it on the podium on live TV at a World Cup Final.
He didn't view it as assault. He viewed it as his right as a man and her superior. He then doubled down on it by lying and saying 'she wanted it'. The defence of wannabe rapists the world over.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I get accused of living in the 1950s. Sadly there are far more obvious examples of 1950s thinking still being displayed today and this case (and your defence of it) is a perfect example.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
"Investigate all thefts" will backfire on the Tories given the amount of time the police will spend tracking down stolen bicycles.
What's wrong with the police finding stolen bicycles?
It was a joke about the inevitable complaints the police will get when they focus on that rather than "real crimes".
I don't think there's a single person who thinks that stolen bikes aren't "real crimes".
Speaking personally, it absolutely is one and is one that should be properly investigated. Especially since I imagine most such thefts are done by the same few people repeatedly.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
Why is there a debate over this ?
The woman involved said she did not consent. Had Rubiales apologised, it might have ended there. That he refuses to do so is a very clear demonstration that he's in the wrong.
Note that under our law, such behaviour is, prima facie, assault. So it's hardly 'cheerleading' by our national broadcaster.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
Quite possibly a lot.
Addressing that issue would do more to improve the air quality in London than to simply condescend to people and ask why they haven't bought a new vehicle yet.
"Investigate all thefts" will backfire on the Tories given the amount of time the police will spend tracking down stolen bicycles.
What's wrong with the police finding stolen bicycles?
It was a joke about the inevitable complaints the police will get when they focus on that rather than "real crimes".
I don't think there's a single person who thinks that stolen bikes aren't "real crimes".
Speaking personally, it absolutely is one and is one that should be properly investigated. Especially since I imagine most such thefts are done by the same few people repeatedly.
And provides a massive disincentive to using a bike. I know several people who gave up cycling in London because of having their bikes stolen repeatedly.
On education, whatever the structure, keeping the feral scum out of the same classroom as the kids who actually want to learn is key.
My class contained the 30 brightest and best in the year. The disruptive scrotes were kept well away from us and we were able to receive a good education at a bog standard comprehensive.
Then in 6th form we had the further benefit of small cohorts, as there weren't that many of us doing A Levels.
I do wonder if the ‘Reverse Grammar School” is the better idea.
Take the bottom 15% out of the system, and teach them electrics, plumbing, metalwork, and basic accounting.
It's a hyper-kerning abomination. The French AAE logo is chic and the USAF logo is modern and sleek with just a hint of sci-fi fascism. The Russian one looks like it came out of a Christmas cracker and the Italian one is like something out of Game of Thrones. Overall, France wins.
Looks like a crappy Olympic logo to me.
Having looked up the Italian one the clashing, garish colours and mishmash of elements in a coat of arm style is awful, USAF's is boring, the Russian one is gaudy but not totally terrible, though the weird thing in the middle does indeed seem like some kind of crappy toy. I feel like someone must be able to do better.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I agree, I saw nothing wrong. He got a bit exuberant at winning the world cup. Pathetic witchunt by a bunch of woke arseholes. He is not stupid , if he wanted to assault her he would not have done it on the podium on live TV at a World Cup Final.
He did assault her. He did it because he didn't think there was any issue doing so, because to some people women don't need to consent. Now he's threatening her, for having the audacity of speaking up and saying she didn't consent.
That's not stupidity, its arrogance. And its not woke to think women have the right to say no.
I tend to wonder if those saying it's no big deal would be fine if, say, Prince William as chair of our FA, were to grab them and kiss them on the lips in front of however-many-million on live TV. When they didn't want it and didn't consent to it.
"Investigate all thefts" will backfire on the Tories given the amount of time the police will spend tracking down stolen bicycles.
What's wrong with the police finding stolen bicycles?
Nothing! But there is a basic problem with the plan: There aren't enough police officers Significant numbers of police forces are beset by scandal There is a massive backlog in the criminal justice system Significant minorities have given up - either getting justice, or fearing the law
If the government wants to resource this properly and throw actual money at having a police service fit for purpose with officers who aren't rapey, and having enough officers, and having enough money to properly fund the CPS, and legal aid, and a courts system able to actually process cases, and prison capacity where we can rehabilitate lags then they would have my full support.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
So Trump’s lawyer tells FOX her client “knows all the facts” and doesn’t need time to prep for the coup trial — while his other lawyer says he needs till April 2026 because it’s so complex. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1696117179421270444
This is going to be Trump's problem. In a criminal trial, you don't get to contradict yourself on a regular basis without consequences. His entire life has not prepared him for that lesson.
I hope so. I get he is trying, reasonably successfully (at least at this stage), in using his legal troubles as a campaigning and political advantage, and that as with many of his eleciton related cases his lawyers in court will probably not say the same things or use the same strategies that he and even his lawyers are saying they will on the media, but having various parts of his legal team run off to the media every 5 minutes feels like it has to hurt him eventually.
Some of his cases, like the documents one, are only even happening because of his inability to ever just fess up even when it doesn't matter (in that case just handing back documents when asked for), and his inability to shut up (or shut up those speaking for him) screwing him over would be very appropriate.
We've already had at least one example where after much effort his lawyers did manage to rein him in from probably making things worse, when he was going to 'reveal' election fraud in Georgia, but can he keep it up?
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
And both are doomed.
Far from it, even Starmer now backs the monarchy and seems to be following largely Tory economic policy
"Investigate all thefts" will backfire on the Tories given the amount of time the police will spend tracking down stolen bicycles.
What's wrong with the police finding stolen bicycles?
Nothing! But there is a basic problem with the plan: There aren't enough police officers Significant numbers of police forces are beset by scandal There is a massive backlog in the criminal justice system Significant minorities have given up - either getting justice, or fearing the law
If the government wants to resource this properly and throw actual money at having a police service fit for purpose with officers who aren't rapey, and having enough officers, and having enough money to properly fund the CPS, and legal aid, and a courts system able to actually process cases, and prison capacity where we can rehabilitate lags then they would have my full support.
But they don't.
All of which may be true, yet there’s still a story today of a local councillor being arrested, tying up several officers for nine hours and possibly longer, for retweeting a post from a registered political party.
The question is of the priorities given to the scare resources, not that the resources themselves are scarce.
Outside of a few regular scrotes, the average person’s interaction with the police is either reporting something stolen, given a crime number for their insurance and otherwise told to f.off, or somewhat over-zealous enforcement of minor motoring offences.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
No it didn't. I was waiting for you to pop up with that.
In fact subsequent sudies showed that crime rates in Califormia started dropping significantly 2 years before the Three-Strikes Law was brought in and corresponded with a large drop in both alcohol consumption and unemployment.
You mean I had the audacity to point to an academic study whilst you were relying on the oh so much more reliable newspaper opinion columns. Lordy I should be more rigorous next time.
It wasn't an academic study of any significance, it was from one of your fellow ideological libertarians who was doing anything he could to ignore the impact of increased arrest and conviction rates on reducing crime and so latched onto falling alcoholism as apparently linked to some crime falling at the same time with no data beyond that
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
More importantly, it doesn’t require you to either have or borrow the 8k up front.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
And both are doomed.
Far from it, even Starmer now backs the monarchy and seems to be following largely Tory economic policy
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
No it didn't. I was waiting for you to pop up with that.
In fact subsequent sudies showed that crime rates in Califormia started dropping significantly 2 years before the Three-Strikes Law was brought in and corresponded with a large drop in both alcohol consumption and unemployment.
You mean I had the audacity to point to an academic study whilst you were relying on the oh so much more reliable newspaper opinion columns. Lordy I should be more rigorous next time.
It wasn't an academic study of any significance, it was from one of your fellow ideologica libertarians who was doing anything he could to ignore the impact of increased arrest and conviction rates on reducing crime and so latched onto falling alcoholism as apparently linked to some crime falling at the same time with no data beyond that
Ah so you are now a judge of the sigificance of academic studies in subjects outside of your own speciality? And you do this on the basis of what experience and training?
Of course we should take your word and that of a newspaper opinion columnist as being more authoritative than an academic who dares to actually use data to come to a conclusion.
Canadian election isn't until 2025 ie after our election and even the Canada Conservatives hardly unexpectedly win most seats after 10 years in opposition to Trudeau's Liberal government they are not guaranteed to be on power themselves unless they won a majority. Especially as the Liberals now have a confidence and supply deal with the NDP
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
No it didn't. I was waiting for you to pop up with that.
In fact subsequent sudies showed that crime rates in Califormia started dropping significantly 2 years before the Three-Strikes Law was brought in and corresponded with a large drop in both alcohol consumption and unemployment.
You mean I had the audacity to point to an academic study whilst you were relying on the oh so much more reliable newspaper opinion columns. Lordy I should be more rigorous next time.
It wasn't an academic study of any significance, it was from one of your fellow ideologica libertarians who was doing anything he could to ignore the impact of increased arrest and conviction rates on reducing crime and so latched onto falling alcoholism as apparently linked to some crime falling at the same time with no data beyond that
Ah so you are now a judge of the sigificance of academic studies in subjects outside of your own speciality? And you do this on the basis of what experience and training?
Of course we should take your word and that of a newspaper opinion columnist as being more authoritative than an academic who dares to actually use data to come to a conclusion.
You are an ideological libertarian who will obviously ignore evidence of increased arrest and conviction rates reducing crime, as you are ideologically opposed to a strong police presence and high conviction rates and want as few laws as possible
After a very turbulent few years, most of which is unprecedented in the average lifetime, it does appear that everyone is in the mood for kicking out the incumbents.
It’s time for a change, no matter what the change.
In Canada specifically, Trudeau is in trouble for his authoritation attacks on protestors during the pandemic, and his euthanasia law that’s leading to the state ‘encouraging’ vulnerable groups to choose that way out.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
No it didn't. I was waiting for you to pop up with that.
In fact subsequent sudies showed that crime rates in Califormia started dropping significantly 2 years before the Three-Strikes Law was brought in and corresponded with a large drop in both alcohol consumption and unemployment.
You mean I had the audacity to point to an academic study whilst you were relying on the oh so much more reliable newspaper opinion columns. Lordy I should be more rigorous next time.
It wasn't an academic study of any significance, it was from one of your fellow ideologica libertarians who was doing anything he could to ignore the impact of increased arrest and conviction rates on reducing crime and so latched onto falling alcoholism as apparently linked to some crime falling at the same time with no data beyond that
Ah so you are now a judge of the sigificance of academic studies in subjects outside of your own speciality? And you do this on the basis of what experience and training?
Of course we should take your word and that of a newspaper opinion columnist as being more authoritative than an academic who dares to actually use data to come to a conclusion.
You are an ideological libertarian who will obviously ignore evidence of increased arrest and conviction rates reducing crime, as you are ideologically opposed to a strong police presence and high conviction rates and want as few laws as possible
Ideology doesn't enter into it.
Basic cause and effect my dear fellow. If the crime rates start dropping 2 years before you implement a policy then it is extremely unlikely that policy is the reason for the drop.
Unless your particular speciality is in time travel.
And stop trying to shift the goalposts. "Arrest and conviction rates" were not the topic of discussion. Sentencing policy was the topic. Your attempts to shift the discussion away from that say much about the strength of your argument.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
Erm you were the one who just said that the BBC news coverage was laughable. It appears to be you who are attempting to sweep this under the carpet.
I have a set of values as regards women that I think are thankfully shared by most people in this country and which have been established into law. I don't think it is laughable that the news reflects those views any more than it reflects the view that rape or sexual assault is bad and not something to be condoned or forgiven simply because of the status of the attacker.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
No it didn't. I was waiting for you to pop up with that.
In fact subsequent sudies showed that crime rates in Califormia started dropping significantly 2 years before the Three-Strikes Law was brought in and corresponded with a large drop in both alcohol consumption and unemployment.
You mean I had the audacity to point to an academic study whilst you were relying on the oh so much more reliable newspaper opinion columns. Lordy I should be more rigorous next time.
It wasn't an academic study of any significance, it was from one of your fellow ideologica libertarians who was doing anything he could to ignore the impact of increased arrest and conviction rates on reducing crime and so latched onto falling alcoholism as apparently linked to some crime falling at the same time with no data beyond that
Ah so you are now a judge of the sigificance of academic studies in subjects outside of your own speciality? And you do this on the basis of what experience and training?
Of course we should take your word and that of a newspaper opinion columnist as being more authoritative than an academic who dares to actually use data to come to a conclusion.
You are an ideological libertarian who will obviously ignore evidence of increased arrest and conviction rates reducing crime, as you are ideologically opposed to a strong police presence and high conviction rates and want as few laws as possible
Ideology doesn't enter into it.
Basic cause and effect my dear fellow. If the crime rates start dropping 2 years before you implement a policy then it is extremely unlikely that policy is the reason for the drop.
Unless your particular speciality is in time travel.
And stop trying to shift the goalposts. "Arrest and conviction rates" were not the topic of discussion. Sentencing policy was the topic. Your attempts to shift the discussion away from that say much about the strength of your argument.
Haha, I see HY has his floor paint out again - he really should learn to start in a corner and work towards the door, not the other way round.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
No it didn't. I was waiting for you to pop up with that.
In fact subsequent sudies showed that crime rates in Califormia started dropping significantly 2 years before the Three-Strikes Law was brought in and corresponded with a large drop in both alcohol consumption and unemployment.
You mean I had the audacity to point to an academic study whilst you were relying on the oh so much more reliable newspaper opinion columns. Lordy I should be more rigorous next time.
It wasn't an academic study of any significance, it was from one of your fellow ideologica libertarians who was doing anything he could to ignore the impact of increased arrest and conviction rates on reducing crime and so latched onto falling alcoholism as apparently linked to some crime falling at the same time with no data beyond that
Ah so you are now a judge of the sigificance of academic studies in subjects outside of your own speciality? And you do this on the basis of what experience and training?
Of course we should take your word and that of a newspaper opinion columnist as being more authoritative than an academic who dares to actually use data to come to a conclusion.
You are an ideological libertarian who will obviously ignore evidence of increased arrest and conviction rates reducing crime, as you are ideologically opposed to a strong police presence and high conviction rates and want as few laws as possible
Again the debate was not about arrest and conviction rates, police presence or laws. It was, and is, about a specific sentencing policy and its ability to deter crime. You are going all around the houses to ignore this simply because you don't like where the evidence points.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
If there is another perspective then I'd love to hear what it is.
All I hear is from people who want to dismiss this is them saying this is "no big deal".
Perhaps you can explain what you think the "other side" is to this.
Do you think women have the right to say no?
Do you think women who have been assaulted have a right to say they did not consent to it?
Do you think women who object to being assaulted should be threatened with legal action?
If there is a side that men have the right to assault women without impunity and that any woman who objects should be the one punished instead, then yes that other viewpoint needs to be engaged and fought in the light of day.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
More importantly, it doesn’t require you to either have or borrow the 8k up front.
A great many people do live from payday to payday.
Its not a lifestyle easily understood, if you don't do it yourself, or have experienced it yourself. Some here clearly have not.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
More importantly, it doesn’t require you to either have or borrow the 8k up front.
A great many people do live from payday to payday.
Its not a lifestyle easily understood, if you don't do it yourself, or have experienced it yourself. Some here clearly have not.
Oh yeah, been there and done that. More recently than most posters on here, when I was working for myself during the pandemic. Way too much month left at the end of the money.
How many pensioners or minimum-wage workers will take their friend to the airport tomorrow, and end up with a £180 ‘penalty’ for doing so, which ends up being a lot more in court if they ignore it?
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
It's the lack of apology which really exploded it here mostly across partisan lines I'd say. If he'd thrown up his hands and said 'I was excited and got carried away, I apologise' then there still would have been a storm about presumption and consent, but it would not have had the sense of unanimity about it, at least in English media terms, since many would likely have felt someone apologising for cocking up was enough without getting into a cultural furore.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
One example, and a pretty unusual one.
I never understood your insistence on this gag to be honest. It works better for authoritarian regimes which are not ostensibly socialist, where we see lots of hereditary republics.
Successfully got through council planning to get permission for a wood burner in our fireplace. Now need to repair a metal fence out front, which means replacing it with one that is similar.
Planning heritage guy has been on site and signed it off. Still need to submit paperwork, but when it gets to his desk to be formally approved then he will do so.
So I submit the listed building consent. Using the same location and site plans that have been successfully accepted for the fireplace (as its the same building),. And they're rejecting the plans complaining about a load of stuff which apparently is wrong. Erm, but you already accepted them once, thats why I reused them...
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
More importantly, it doesn’t require you to either have or borrow the 8k up front.
A great many people do live from payday to payday.
Its not a lifestyle easily understood, if you don't do it yourself, or have experienced it yourself. Some here clearly have not.
As I asked earlier, anyone have data on this for commercials?
As I see it, buying vehicles on credit of various kinds does not seem to be a problem for 90% of new car buyers or 2/3 of used car buyers, so I don't see it as a problem here either.
I think we have a classic cabbie-whinge, which Howard Cox and friends are trying to ride, which will vanish very quickly.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
If there is another perspective then I'd love to hear what it is.
All I hear is from people who want to dismiss this is them saying this is "no big deal".
Perhaps you can explain what you think the "other side" is to this.
Do you think women have the right to say no?
Do you think women who have been assaulted have a right to say they did not consent to it?
Do you think women who object to being assaulted should be threatened with legal action?
If there is a side that men have the right to assault women without impunity and that any woman who objects should be the one punished instead, then yes that other viewpoint needs to be engaged and fought in the light of day.
I think the "other side" is more insidious - it's not "It's fine to assault women" but "One kiss isn't a big deal with so much wrong in the world". That recruits not just the genuine misogynists like Andrew Tate but also the tired and fed-up people who don't want to engage at all. And there are a lot of those.
And of course an unwelcome kiss isn't rape or murder, but that doesn't make it right. It's a relatively mild example of a dangerous and unpleasant phenomenon that reaches into most women's lives and makes them insecure even in everyday life, and even the disengaged will if pressed tend to agree that there's a slippery slope in tolerating it. That, I think, is the argument to use, rather than treating it as an inexcusable crime in itself.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
And both are doomed.
Far from it, even Starmer now backs the monarchy and seems to be following largely Tory economic policy
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
When we tried a republic in England they were so confused about what to do when the 'president' died that they instinctively put his ineffectual 22-year-old son in charge. He was so ineffectual he managed to live inconspicuously for another 64 years after being deposed.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
If there is another perspective then I'd love to hear what it is.
All I hear is from people who want to dismiss this is them saying this is "no big deal".
Perhaps you can explain what you think the "other side" is to this.
Do you think women have the right to say no?
Do you think women who have been assaulted have a right to say they did not consent to it?
Do you think women who object to being assaulted should be threatened with legal action?
If there is a side that men have the right to assault women without impunity and that any woman who objects should be the one punished instead, then yes that other viewpoint needs to be engaged and fought in the light of day.
I think the "other side" is more insidious - it's not "It's fine to assault women" but "One kiss isn't a big deal with so much wrong in the world". That recruits not just the genuine misogynists like Andrew Tate but also the tired and fed-up people who don't want to engage at all. And there are a lot of those.
And of course an unwelcome kiss isn't rape or murder, but that doesn't make it right. It's a relatively mild example of a dangerous and unpleasant phenomenon that reaches into most women's lives and makes them insecure even in everyday life, and even the disengaged will if pressed tend to agree that there's a slippery slope in tolerating it. That, I think, is the argument to use, rather than treating it as an inexcusable crime in itself.
That’s very well said Nick, threading the needle.
Would never have guessed that you were a professional politician!
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
More importantly, it doesn’t require you to either have or borrow the 8k up front.
A great many people do live from payday to payday.
Its not a lifestyle easily understood, if you don't do it yourself, or have experienced it yourself. Some here clearly have not.
As I asked earlier, anyone have data on this?
What proportion don't have £8,000 in savings? Its a good question, I don't have the data.
But there is similar data around.
A quarter of Britons don't have any savings. Half of Britons have £1,000 or less in savings. The only age groups that on average do have over £8000 in savings are over 45s.
Oh and Londoners on average have less savings than average.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
If there is another perspective then I'd love to hear what it is.
All I hear is from people who want to dismiss this is them saying this is "no big deal".
Perhaps you can explain what you think the "other side" is to this.
Do you think women have the right to say no?
Do you think women who have been assaulted have a right to say they did not consent to it?
Do you think women who object to being assaulted should be threatened with legal action?
If there is a side that men have the right to assault women without impunity and that any woman who objects should be the one punished instead, then yes that other viewpoint needs to be engaged and fought in the light of day.
I think the "other side" is more insidious - it's not "It's fine to assault women" but "One kiss isn't a big deal with so much wrong in the world". That recruits not just the genuine misogynists like Andrew Tate but also the tired and fed-up people who don't want to engage at all. And there are a lot of those.
And of course an unwelcome kiss isn't rape or murder, but that doesn't make it right. It's a relatively mild example of a dangerous and unpleasant phenomenon that reaches into most women's lives and makes them insecure even in everyday life, and even the disengaged will if pressed tend to agree that there's a slippery slope in tolerating it. That, I think, is the argument to use, rather than treating it as an inexcusable crime in itself.
I was a little horrified this summer when my Spanish father-in-law started objecting to the government by saying it was now against the law to wolf-whistle at a beautiful woman. He went in depth about his right to objectify women because "its not doing any harm". Erm, your 12-year old granddaughter is behind you in your pool. I don't want her being leered at by old bastards like you who think its their right.
On education, whatever the structure, keeping the feral scum out of the same classroom as the kids who actually want to learn is key.
My class contained the 30 brightest and best in the year. The disruptive scrotes were kept well away from us and we were able to receive a good education at a bog standard comprehensive.
Then in 6th form we had the further benefit of small cohorts, as there weren't that many of us doing A Levels.
I do wonder if the ‘Reverse Grammar School” is the better idea.
Take the bottom 15% out of the system, and teach them electrics, plumbing, metalwork, and basic accounting.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
When we tried a republic in England they were so confused about what to do when the 'president' died that they instinctively put his ineffectual 22-year-old son in charge. He was so ineffectual he managed to live inconspicuously for another 64 years after being deposed.
Well, it is pretty clear that most people in the country would have been happier with a monarchy, and even a majority of the Protectorate parliamentarians would have as well. It's a fascinating what if had Oliver lived another 5-10 years, since he wasn't an old man or anything. Charles II probably couldn't believe his luck.
Also, Richard was 32, so that's fine.
I don't remember why he was chosen when on paper Henry Cromwell seems like he would have been a better choice, having military and parliamentarian experience.
"Investigate all thefts" will backfire on the Tories given the amount of time the police will spend tracking down stolen bicycles.
What's wrong with the police finding stolen bicycles?
It was a joke about the inevitable complaints the police will get when they focus on that rather than "real crimes".
I don't think there's a single person who thinks that stolen bikes aren't "real crimes".
Speaking personally, it absolutely is one and is one that should be properly investigated. Especially since I imagine most such thefts are done by the same few people repeatedly.
I was at school with an otherwise unobjectionable boy (American) who stole bikes regularly. In Denmark, there were hundreds at every railway station, mostly unlocked, and he reasoned that if one bike got nicked, then hey, it hardly mattered as there were all the others. If convenient, he would even return it a few days later.
The odd thing was that although we all without exception thought he was nuts and instantly saw through his specious argument, it would never have occurred to any of us to report him to anyone - teachers, police, whoever. When I read about communities who seem puzzlingly unwilling to help the police solve crimes, I think of that - somehow group/community loyalty trumps basic common sense.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
More importantly, it doesn’t require you to either have or borrow the 8k up front.
A great many people do live from payday to payday.
Its not a lifestyle easily understood, if you don't do it yourself, or have experienced it yourself. Some here clearly have not.
As I asked earlier, anyone have data on this?
What proportion don't have £8,000 in savings? Its a good question, I don't have the data.
But there is similar data around.
A quarter of Britons don't have any savings. Half of Britons have £1,000 or less in savings. The only age groups that on average do have over £8000 in savings are over 45s.
Oh and Londoners on average have less savings than average.
You have data on self-employed tradesmen in Outer London who can afford to run a business and own a van, but are unable to raise 8k either in cash or on finance to get a compliant one?
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
More importantly, it doesn’t require you to either have or borrow the 8k up front.
A great many people do live from payday to payday.
Its not a lifestyle easily understood, if you don't do it yourself, or have experienced it yourself. Some here clearly have not.
As I asked earlier, anyone have data on this?
What proportion don't have £8,000 in savings? Its a good question, I don't have the data.
But there is similar data around.
A quarter of Britons don't have any savings. Half of Britons have £1,000 or less in savings. The only age groups that on average do have over £8000 in savings are over 45s.
Oh and Londoners on average have less savings than average.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
If there is another perspective then I'd love to hear what it is.
All I hear is from people who want to dismiss this is them saying this is "no big deal".
Perhaps you can explain what you think the "other side" is to this.
Do you think women have the right to say no?
Do you think women who have been assaulted have a right to say they did not consent to it?
Do you think women who object to being assaulted should be threatened with legal action?
If there is a side that men have the right to assault women without impunity and that any woman who objects should be the one punished instead, then yes that other viewpoint needs to be engaged and fought in the light of day.
I think the "other side" is more insidious - it's not "It's fine to assault women" but "One kiss isn't a big deal with so much wrong in the world". That recruits not just the genuine misogynists like Andrew Tate but also the tired and fed-up people who don't want to engage at all. And there are a lot of those.
And of course an unwelcome kiss isn't rape or murder, but that doesn't make it right. It's a relatively mild example of a dangerous and unpleasant phenomenon that reaches into most women's lives and makes them insecure even in everyday life, and even the disengaged will if pressed tend to agree that there's a slippery slope in tolerating it. That, I think, is the argument to use, rather than treating it as an inexcusable crime in itself.
I was a little horrified this summer when my Spanish father-in-law started objecting to the government by saying it was now against the law to wolf-whistle at a beautiful woman. He went in depth about his right to objectify women because "its not doing any harm". Erm, your 12-year old granddaughter is behind you in your pool. I don't want her being leered at by old bastards like you who think its their right.
And part of the trouble is that all of this has been weaponised in Spanish politics.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
I thought it was common knowledge that Kim Jong Un was a direct descendant of Seongjong of Joseon.
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
If there is another perspective then I'd love to hear what it is.
All I hear is from people who want to dismiss this is them saying this is "no big deal".
Perhaps you can explain what you think the "other side" is to this.
Do you think women have the right to say no?
Do you think women who have been assaulted have a right to say they did not consent to it?
Do you think women who object to being assaulted should be threatened with legal action?
If there is a side that men have the right to assault women without impunity and that any woman who objects should be the one punished instead, then yes that other viewpoint needs to be engaged and fought in the light of day.
I think the "other side" is more insidious - it's not "It's fine to assault women" but "One kiss isn't a big deal with so much wrong in the world". That recruits not just the genuine misogynists like Andrew Tate but also the tired and fed-up people who don't want to engage at all. And there are a lot of those.
And of course an unwelcome kiss isn't rape or murder, but that doesn't make it right. It's a relatively mild example of a dangerous and unpleasant phenomenon that reaches into most women's lives and makes them insecure even in everyday life, and even the disengaged will if pressed tend to agree that there's a slippery slope in tolerating it. That, I think, is the argument to use, rather than treating it as an inexcusable crime in itself.
That's part of the story. The other part is simpler - we're not talking about condemning a man to hell, or sending him to prison. I don't know anything about the guy - he comes across as a bit of an arsehole but what do I know? It's just obvious that he isn't suitable for the job of president of the Spanish football federation and if he had any dignity he would resign instead of pretending to be a victim, blaming everyone else and generally acting like a 5 year old.
What's worrying is the number of people (men) who are willing to applaud him for this pathetic display.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
On ULEZ if it not a problem as some would suggest why has it generated £224 million in 2022 ?
Because some people still want to use their noncompliant vehicles, but have to pay something for the externality they impose on London. It's actually evidence the system is working.
Because some people have no choice but to continue using their noncompliant vehicles, being unable to afford something similar that is complaint.
Ask any tradesman with an old Transit van if he wants to spend £15k in cash on a compliant one, or keep paying the £12.50 per day? And if he lives just outside the zone, he has no incentives to trade in and doesn’t want a loan anyway.
He can't get one on tick>
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui. Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Which if you can afford a new vehicle is fantastic. If you can't then you're stuck paying a tax to punish you for being poor.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I wonder how many self-employed tradesmen there are in Outer London who can't raise 8k for a better van?
Anyone have data?
8K would buy you 640 days of pollution if you keep your old vehicle.
More importantly, it doesn’t require you to either have or borrow the 8k up front.
A great many people do live from payday to payday.
Its not a lifestyle easily understood, if you don't do it yourself, or have experienced it yourself. Some here clearly have not.
As I asked earlier, anyone have data on this?
What proportion don't have £8,000 in savings? Its a good question, I don't have the data.
But there is similar data around.
A quarter of Britons don't have any savings. Half of Britons have £1,000 or less in savings. The only age groups that on average do have over £8000 in savings are over 45s.
Oh and Londoners on average have less savings than average.
You have data on self-employed tradesmen in Outer London who can afford to run a business and own a van, but are unable to raise 8k either in cash or on finance to get a compliant one?
Do you?
I don't have the exact data but all data I've seen suggests the answer would be "a lot".
Most people lack the savings.
Then if you're suggesting finance as the alternative, then you run into the problem that a great many poor people with poor savings also have poor credit. And poor savings, poor credit while being self-employed so no guaranteed income to show the bank hardly lends itself to getting good finance either.
So what's your solution? Simply advise people to get a loan, when they lack the savings or credit to do so?
That most people who can afford a new car, can afford a new car, is not a solution for those who can't.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
The Kims you mean. And the Mount Paektu bloodline.
On this one Sunil is actually on solid ground.
Christ, Kim Il Sung and Kim jong-Il have essentially been deified like Roman Emperors.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
Interesting account. Yet we are told that the numbers are now recovered after the Cameroon (and possibly NuLab) years of salami slicing. Graph below.
Where have the restored numbers of policemen gone? It isn't traffic policing, which has been cut in numbers by about half since 2007 (data out there easy to find).
I'm with you on the funding, and I'd argue for more PCSOs and more careful management of them.
On education, whatever the structure, keeping the feral scum out of the same classroom as the kids who actually want to learn is key.
My class contained the 30 brightest and best in the year. The disruptive scrotes were kept well away from us and we were able to receive a good education at a bog standard comprehensive.
Then in 6th form we had the further benefit of small cohorts, as there weren't that many of us doing A Levels.
I do wonder if the ‘Reverse Grammar School” is the better idea.
Take the bottom 15% out of the system, and teach them electrics, plumbing, metalwork, and basic accounting.
It's a hyper-kerning abomination. The French AAE logo is chic and the USAF logo is modern and sleek with just a hint of sci-fi fascism. The Russian one looks like it came out of a Christmas cracker and the Italian one is like something out of Game of Thrones. Overall, France wins.
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
I know a police officer in Inverness who was called to an assault in Aberdeen. What might appear a small percentage cut can lead to a huge decrease in the level of service provided.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
If there is another perspective then I'd love to hear what it is.
All I hear is from people who want to dismiss this is them saying this is "no big deal".
Perhaps you can explain what you think the "other side" is to this.
Do you think women have the right to say no?
Do you think women who have been assaulted have a right to say they did not consent to it?
Do you think women who object to being assaulted should be threatened with legal action?
If there is a side that men have the right to assault women without impunity and that any woman who objects should be the one punished instead, then yes that other viewpoint needs to be engaged and fought in the light of day.
I think the "other side" is more insidious - it's not "It's fine to assault women" but "One kiss isn't a big deal with so much wrong in the world". That recruits not just the genuine misogynists like Andrew Tate but also the tired and fed-up people who don't want to engage at all. And there are a lot of those.
And of course an unwelcome kiss isn't rape or murder, but that doesn't make it right. It's a relatively mild example of a dangerous and unpleasant phenomenon that reaches into most women's lives and makes them insecure even in everyday life, and even the disengaged will if pressed tend to agree that there's a slippery slope in tolerating it. That, I think, is the argument to use, rather than treating it as an inexcusable crime in itself.
That's part of the story. The other part is simpler - we're not talking about condemning a man to hell, or sending him to prison. I don't know anything about the guy - he comes across as a bit of an arsehole but what do I know? It's just obvious that he isn't suitable for the job of president of the Spanish football federation and if he had any dignity he would resign instead of pretending to be a victim, blaming everyone else and generally acting like a 5 year old.
What's worrying is the number of people (men) who are willing to applaud him for this pathetic display.
Agreed.
It's a classic example of digging a deeper hole. What he did was wrong; minor-league wrong, but wrong nonetheless. He could have said: "I'm sorry. I got carried away in the moment." and people would probably have shrugged and moved on. Instead, he haf-apologised, then said a load of stuff that made his position worse - as we have seen by the reactions.
He is in the wrong, and either does not realise it, or realises it but wishes to pretend he is not in the wrong. He was essentially her boss, some layers up, and could have an influence over her career.
Soes anyone on here want to work in a workplace where senior managers could go around kissing staff, even in moments of exhilaration?
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
Interesting account. Yet we are told that the numbers are now recovered after the Cameroon (and possibly NuLab) years of salami slicing. Graph below.
Where have the restored numbers of policemen gone? It isn't traffic policing, which has been cut in numbers by about half since 2007 (data out there easy to find).
I'm with you on the funding, and I'd argue for more PCSOs and more careful management of them.
To be fair the account I gave did date to the very trough of that chart in 2018.
I wonder if there is also a question of whether we have the balance wrong between preventing crime and solving crime. How many of those new recruits are not actually out in the community being visible and detering criminals and how many are involved in the process of cataloguing and analysing crime? I don't know but I would be interested to see how much of an increase of police 'feet (or wheels) on the ground' there has been in recent years compared to the raw increase in manpower.
Interesting account. Yet we are told that the numbers are now recovered after the Cameroon (and possibly NuLab) years of salami slicing. Graph below.
Where have the restored numbers of policemen gone? It isn't traffic policing, which has been cut in numbers by about half since 2007 (data out there easy to find).
I'm with you on the funding, and I'd argue for more PCSOs and more careful management of them.
Happy to believe you, but it's only part of the story. For any datum you need to know three things
the absolute value (how big is it)
the relative value (how big is it compared to others)
the threshold (how big is big enough)
Your graphic tells me how big is it (150,000 in E&W) and how big is compared to others (back up to the Brown years). But it does not tell me how many are required: how big is big enough.
We have about 68million people in the UK and a large number of crime definitions and crime activities. The question we need to answer is "how many police officers do we need to handle that and how much does it cost?"
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
Interesting account. Yet we are told that the numbers are now recovered after the Cameroon (and possibly NuLab) years of salami slicing. Graph below.
Where have the restored numbers of policemen gone? It isn't traffic policing, which has been cut in numbers by about half since 2007 (data out there easy to find).
I'm with you on the funding, and I'd argue for more PCSOs and more careful management of them.
Oh and I agree with you about PCSOs. People complain they are a cheap option but my experiences with them, at least ina market town environment, have always been extremely good. They absoluetly do work as a deterent to anti-social beahviour and can be a valuable resource. I just don't think they should be viewed by the Government as an excuse to cut regular police numbers as well.
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
Whilst I was on Teesside we (Labour councillors) chatted with the local Inspector. On a Saturday night he had 3 officers to cover a very large area. As soon as you had scrotes in custody you could end up with zero available in a place as calm and crime-free as hartlepool.
Tories now say they want to crack down on crime. Yes, we all do. But why do we have so much crime? Because in some places there are no police. None.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
Whilst I was on Teesside we (Labour councillors) chatted with the local Inspector. On a Saturday night he had 3 officers to cover a very large area. As soon as you had scrotes in custody you could end up with zero available in a place as calm and crime-free as hartlepool.
Tories now say they want to crack down on crime. Yes, we all do. But why do we have so much crime? Because in some places there are no police. None.
I am liking Suella's blue skies policing thinking. Get her into office quickly and get rid of the failing incumbents.
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
I think the most difficult question of all is - what if there's a hung jury?
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
Interesting account. Yet we are told that the numbers are now recovered after the Cameroon (and possibly NuLab) years of salami slicing. Graph below.
Where have the restored numbers of policemen gone? It isn't traffic policing, which has been cut in numbers by about half since 2007 (data out there easy to find).
I'm with you on the funding, and I'd argue for more PCSOs and more careful management of them.
We cut the experienced coppers and then, a few years later, try to replace them with raw recruits. On traffic, I gather some enforcement was handed over to local authorities but don't have the details.
ETA and the number of police increased under, as you have it, NuLab. No salami slicing there.
Comments
Inside the zone he is eligible for 7k aiui.
Outside the zone perhaps the Councils need to have a word with themselves.
As a sole trader he will get the normal tax breaks, and the cost benefits that result from a newer vehicle.
Hopefully an electoral tsunami will sweep her into the dustbin of history by 2024.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1696117179421270444
This is going to be Trump's problem.
In a criminal trial, you don't get to contradict yourself on a regular basis without consequences.
His entire life has not prepared him for that lesson.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
That's not stupidity, its arrogance. And its not woke to think women have the right to say no.
Getting mugged is a long lasting experience.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I get accused of living in the 1950s. Sadly there are far more obvious examples of 1950s thinking still being displayed today and this case (and your defence of it) is a perfect example.
Anyone have data?
Speaking personally, it absolutely is one and is one that should be properly investigated. Especially since I imagine most such thefts are done by the same few people repeatedly.
Addressing that issue would do more to improve the air quality in London than to simply condescend to people and ask why they haven't bought a new vehicle yet.
Having looked up the Italian one the clashing, garish colours and mishmash of elements in a coat of arm style is awful, USAF's is boring, the Russian one is gaudy but not totally terrible, though the weird thing in the middle does indeed seem like some kind of crappy toy.
I feel like someone must be able to do better.
Or is it just okay if it happens to women?
Conservatives with most seats: 98%
Conservative majority: 67%
https://338canada.com/federal.htm
There aren't enough police officers
Significant numbers of police forces are beset by scandal
There is a massive backlog in the criminal justice system
Significant minorities have given up - either getting justice, or fearing the law
If the government wants to resource this properly and throw actual money at having a police service fit for purpose with officers who aren't rapey, and having enough officers, and having enough money to properly fund the CPS, and legal aid, and a courts system able to actually process cases, and prison capacity where we can rehabilitate lags then they would have my full support.
But they don't.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
Some of his cases, like the documents one, are only even happening because of his inability to ever just fess up even when it doesn't matter (in that case just handing back documents when asked for), and his inability to shut up (or shut up those speaking for him) screwing him over would be very appropriate.
We've already had at least one example where after much effort his lawyers did manage to rein him in from probably making things worse, when he was going to 'reveal' election fraud in Georgia, but can he keep it up?
The question is of the priorities given to the scare resources, not that the resources themselves are scarce.
Outside of a few regular scrotes, the average person’s interaction with the police is either reporting something stolen, given a crime number for their insurance and otherwise told to f.off, or somewhat over-zealous enforcement of minor motoring offences.
of any significance, it was
from one of your fellow
ideological libertarians who was doing anything he could to ignore the impact of increased arrest and conviction rates on reducing crime and so latched onto falling alcoholism as apparently linked to some crime falling at the same time with no data beyond that
Top economists pile pressure on Keir Starmer to reverse Tory cuts
Prominent academics say they are concerned Labour’s programme will not break with Tory economic orthodoxy
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-policies-benefit-cuts-reeves-b2399406.html
Of course we should take your word and that of a newspaper opinion columnist as being more authoritative than an academic who dares to actually use data to come to a conclusion.
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s time for a change, no matter what the change.
In Canada specifically, Trudeau is in trouble for his authoritation attacks on protestors during the pandemic, and his euthanasia law that’s leading to the state ‘encouraging’ vulnerable groups to choose that way out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66636347
Basic cause and effect my dear fellow. If the crime rates start dropping 2 years before you implement a policy then it is extremely unlikely that policy is the reason for the drop.
Unless your particular speciality is in time travel.
And stop trying to shift the goalposts. "Arrest and conviction rates" were not the topic of discussion. Sentencing policy was the topic. Your attempts to shift the discussion away from that say much about the strength of your argument.
I have a set of values as regards women that I think are thankfully shared by most people in this country and which have been established into law. I don't think it is laughable that the news reflects those views any more than it reflects the view that rape or sexual assault is bad and not something to be condoned or forgiven simply because of the status of the attacker.
All I hear is from people who want to dismiss this is them saying this is "no big deal".
Perhaps you can explain what you think the "other side" is to this.
Do you think women have the right to say no?
Do you think women who have been assaulted have a right to say they did not consent to it?
Do you think women who object to being assaulted should be threatened with legal action?
If there is a side that men have the right to assault women without impunity and that any woman who objects should be the one punished instead, then yes that other viewpoint needs to be engaged and fought in the light of day.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Its not a lifestyle easily understood, if you don't do it yourself, or have experienced it yourself. Some here clearly have not.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
How many pensioners or minimum-wage workers will take their friend to the airport tomorrow, and end up with a £180 ‘penalty’ for doing so, which ends up being a lot more in court if they ignore it?
I never understood your insistence on this gag to be honest. It works better for authoritarian regimes which are not ostensibly socialist, where we see lots of hereditary republics.
Planning heritage guy has been on site and signed it off. Still need to submit paperwork, but when it gets to his desk to be formally approved then he will do so.
So I submit the listed building consent. Using the same location and site plans that have been successfully accepted for the fireplace (as its the same building),. And they're rejecting the plans complaining about a load of stuff which apparently is wrong. Erm, but you already accepted them once, thats why I reused them...
As I see it, buying vehicles on credit of various kinds does not seem to be a problem for 90% of new car buyers or 2/3 of used car buyers, so I don't see it as a problem here either.
I think we have a classic cabbie-whinge, which Howard Cox and friends are trying to ride, which will vanish very quickly.
And of course an unwelcome kiss isn't rape or murder, but that doesn't make it right. It's a relatively mild example of a dangerous and unpleasant phenomenon that reaches into most women's lives and makes them insecure even in everyday life, and even the disengaged will if pressed tend to agree that there's a slippery slope in tolerating it. That, I think, is the argument to use, rather than treating it as an inexcusable crime in itself.
Or do they think that government spending can only ever be increased ?
Would never have guessed that you were a professional politician!
But there is similar data around.
A quarter of Britons don't have any savings.
Half of Britons have £1,000 or less in savings.
The only age groups that on average do have over £8000 in savings are over 45s.
Oh and Londoners on average have less savings than average.
https://www.finder.com/uk/saving-statistics
Also, Richard was 32, so that's fine.
I don't remember why he was chosen when on paper Henry Cromwell seems like he would have been a better choice, having military and parliamentarian experience.
https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/lhr
The odd thing was that although we all without exception thought he was nuts and instantly saw through his specious argument, it would never have occurred to any of us to report him to anyone - teachers, police, whoever. When I read about communities who seem puzzlingly unwilling to help the police solve crimes, I think of that - somehow group/community loyalty trumps basic common sense.
You have data on self-employed tradesmen in Outer London who can afford to run a business and own a van, but are unable to raise 8k either in cash or on finance to get a compliant one?
But neighbours with identical houses and cars might have half a million difference in savings.
Thread here:
https://twitter.com/shaunjlawson/status/1695350187403653288
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
What's worrying is the number of people (men) who are willing to applaud him for this pathetic display.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
The GOP line appears to be that Biden is a senile dodderer who is connected to crime and is a failure as President.
The obvious problem is all of that could be said about Trump as well.
I don't have the exact data but all data I've seen suggests the answer would be "a lot".
Most people lack the savings.
Then if you're suggesting finance as the alternative, then you run into the problem that a great many poor people with poor savings also have poor credit. And poor savings, poor credit while being self-employed so no guaranteed income to show the bank hardly lends itself to getting good finance either.
So what's your solution? Simply advise people to get a loan, when they lack the savings or credit to do so?
That most people who can afford a new car, can afford a new car, is not a solution for those who can't.
On this one Sunil is actually on solid ground.
Christ, Kim Il Sung and Kim jong-Il have essentially been deified like Roman Emperors.
Where have the restored numbers of policemen gone? It isn't traffic policing, which has been cut in numbers by about half since 2007 (data out there easy to find).
I'm with you on the funding, and I'd argue for more PCSOs and more careful management of them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/28/air-traffic-control-grounds-uk-flights-live-latest-updates/
https://www.trademark.af.mil/Branding/Air-Force-Symbol/
For space agencies/forces I love the way that the Americans, Russians and Chinese blatantly ripped off Star Trek
Logo of the United States Space Force
Logo of the Russian Federal Space Agency/Roscosmos
Logo of the Chinese National Space Administration
Logo of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation
Logo of the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation
Of course the British ripped off Only Fools and Horses
The British Space Program (post-1970s)
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
It's a classic example of digging a deeper hole. What he did was wrong; minor-league wrong, but wrong nonetheless. He could have said: "I'm sorry. I got carried away in the moment." and people would probably have shrugged and moved on. Instead, he haf-apologised, then said a load of stuff that made his position worse - as we have seen by the reactions.
He is in the wrong, and either does not realise it, or realises it but wishes to pretend he is not in the wrong. He was essentially her boss, some layers up, and could have an influence over her career.
Soes anyone on here want to work in a workplace where senior managers could go around kissing staff, even in moments of exhilaration?
I wonder if there is also a question of whether we have the balance wrong between preventing crime and solving crime. How many of those new recruits are not actually out in the community being visible and detering criminals and how many are involved in the process of cataloguing and analysing crime? I don't know but I would be interested to see how much of an increase of police 'feet (or wheels) on the ground' there has been in recent years compared to the raw increase in manpower.
- the absolute value (how big is it)
- the relative value (how big is it compared to others)
- the threshold (how big is big enough)
Your graphic tells me how big is it (150,000 in E&W) and how big is compared to others (back up to the Brown years). But it does not tell me how many are required: how big is big enough.We have about 68million people in the UK and a large number of crime definitions and crime activities. The question we need to answer is "how many police officers do we need to handle that and how much does it cost?"
Tories now say they want to crack down on crime. Yes, we all do. But why do we have so much crime? Because in some places there are no police. None.
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Which is not a negligible probability.
ETA and the number of police increased under, as you have it, NuLab. No salami slicing there.