What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.
National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be increased to £2 million instead so older people can ultimately pass on more of their assets to their children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
Why shouldn't non-workers contribute to those things ?
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.
National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be increased to £2 million instead so older people can ultimately pass on more of their assets to their children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
Why shouldn't non-workers contribute to those things ?
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
And I don't see that it was ever hypothecated (as opposed to providing 'rights', with no regard to whether too much or too little was being paid to HMG).
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
Lots of pressure for F2F teaching comes mainly from the students, to be honest.
We do a lot online. All lectures recorded (either a previous recording, or from the live delivery). Lots of online content.
However we have fallen down with online exams. Frankly, there is too big a temptation for students to cheat. So they do. And they get caught.
As a result, we are mostly back to in person pen and paper exams.
I am sad about this. Some exams are easy to write to test application of knowledge, and they still work on line, but too much other stuff doesn’t. There are debates about how much simple fact learning is needed, but I think someone passing a degree in subject x ought to have acquired a decent level of fact recall in subject x. Yes access to Google, and increasingly Chatgpt means easy ways to recall that formula, or specific drug etc, but there is a level of attainment that a student needs to meet to be able to understand what to search for and how to use it.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
There's a lot of scope to use remote lectures, seminars and tutorials to enable studying for a degree, full or part time, and from your existing location, giving anyone with the aptitude to achieve a degree a means to do so, even while working at another job.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.
National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be increased to £2 million instead so older people can ultimately pass on more of their assets to their children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
Why shouldn't non-workers contribute to those things ?
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
The present IHT allowance is more than fair and this conservative rejects any increase in it, especially in these days of hard times
Indeed @HYUFD proposal is entirely self interest and is only likely to help a minority of estates in London and the south
Really good game this. The Scots are giving a great account of themselves so far.
They missed a chance to score though. If only he'd passed the ball! Hopefully Gregor will give them a good talking to at half time and fire them up for the second half.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
There's a lot of scope to use remote lectures, seminars and tutorials to enable studying for a degree, full or part time, and from your existing location, giving anyone with the aptitude to achieve a degree a means to do so, even while working at another job.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
Remote is really hard. I speak from experience of running live online sessions. Students are less engaged, most refused to turn cameras on in tutorials, lectures perhaps a bit better, but I’d argue it’s easier to ask questions in person.
And fundamentally, most students want to be in person.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
There's a lot of scope to use remote lectures, seminars and tutorials to enable studying for a degree, full or part time, and from your existing location, giving anyone with the aptitude to achieve a degree a means to do so, even while working at another job.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
Remote is really hard. I speak from experience of running live online sessions. Students are less engaged, most refused to turn cameras on in tutorials, lectures perhaps a bit better, but I’d argue it’s easier to ask questions in person.
And fundamentally, most students want to be in person.
The Open University shows both the strengths and limits of that sort of model. For reasons I don't remotely understand, the last decade or so has put them in a much weaker position- does anyone know what went wrong for them?
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
There's a lot of scope to use remote lectures, seminars and tutorials to enable studying for a degree, full or part time, and from your existing location, giving anyone with the aptitude to achieve a degree a means to do so, even while working at another job.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
Remote is really hard. I speak from experience of running live online sessions. Students are less engaged, most refused to turn cameras on in tutorials, lectures perhaps a bit better, but I’d argue it’s easier to ask questions in person.
And fundamentally, most students want to be in person.
The Open University shows both the strengths and limits of that sort of model. For reasons I don't remotely understand, the last decade or so has put them in a much weaker position- does anyone know what went wrong for them?
Is it possible that the advent of mass uni education has reduced the demand for degrees later in life?
Topical header given the overrated rockers are releasing a new LP.
Over-rated rockers? Best pub band in the world....
The vid of their new single is good old-fashioned unapologetic Stones doing their stuff on billboards while an appreciative young lady motors by in her convertible. Worth a look.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
There's a lot of scope to use remote lectures, seminars and tutorials to enable studying for a degree, full or part time, and from your existing location, giving anyone with the aptitude to achieve a degree a means to do so, even while working at another job.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
Remote is really hard. I speak from experience of running live online sessions. Students are less engaged, most refused to turn cameras on in tutorials, lectures perhaps a bit better, but I’d argue it’s easier to ask questions in person.
And fundamentally, most students want to be in person.
The Open University shows both the strengths and limits of that sort of model. For reasons I don't remotely understand, the last decade or so has put them in a much weaker position- does anyone know what went wrong for them?
I think it's been downhill for them ever since they lost their slots on the BBC. That made them feel like a true national institution but they no longer have a unique position.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
There's a lot of scope to use remote lectures, seminars and tutorials to enable studying for a degree, full or part time, and from your existing location, giving anyone with the aptitude to achieve a degree a means to do so, even while working at another job.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
Remote is really hard. I speak from experience of running live online sessions. Students are less engaged, most refused to turn cameras on in tutorials, lectures perhaps a bit better, but I’d argue it’s easier to ask questions in person.
And fundamentally, most students want to be in person.
I agree, in person is best, and what I'm suggesting is not possible for degrees requiring labs or practical work, such as medicine or engineering or the sciences. However, I think remote learning is an option for people who can't attend in person, for whatever reason. I took 4 years to do a Master's remotely, 20 years ago. I had to do a lot of work on my own. I had access to the local university library by reciprocal agreement. I had work colleagues rather than fellow students to discuss my coursework with and I got some very different perspectives. It was definitely worth doing. Had to attend for exams and a couple of study days. And my graduation
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
There's a lot of scope to use remote lectures, seminars and tutorials to enable studying for a degree, full or part time, and from your existing location, giving anyone with the aptitude to achieve a degree a means to do so, even while working at another job.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
Remote is really hard. I speak from experience of running live online sessions. Students are less engaged, most refused to turn cameras on in tutorials, lectures perhaps a bit better, but I’d argue it’s easier to ask questions in person.
And fundamentally, most students want to be in person.
The Open University shows both the strengths and limits of that sort of model. For reasons I don't remotely understand, the last decade or so has put them in a much weaker position- does anyone know what went wrong for them?
I don't know much about the OU but I am I right in understanding that many people get a sort of "portfolio degree" by studying many different subjects? If so, that always sounded a bit pick-and-mix to me
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)
The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.
The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.
Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
There's a lot of scope to use remote lectures, seminars and tutorials to enable studying for a degree, full or part time, and from your existing location, giving anyone with the aptitude to achieve a degree a means to do so, even while working at another job.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
Remote is really hard. I speak from experience of running live online sessions. Students are less engaged, most refused to turn cameras on in tutorials, lectures perhaps a bit better, but I’d argue it’s easier to ask questions in person.
And fundamentally, most students want to be in person.
The Open University shows both the strengths and limits of that sort of model. For reasons I don't remotely understand, the last decade or so has put them in a much weaker position- does anyone know what went wrong for them?
I think it's been downhill for them ever since they lost their slots on the BBC. That made them feel like a true national institution but they no longer have a unique position.
They got fucked by Cameron in 2011. No longer an affordable way to 'upskill' for those on lower incomes.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
Quite. Starting with those from the University of Oxford, perhaps, whose graduates seem to think that smooth talk will trump thinking and understanding.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Better than Trump's US, Bolsonaro's Brazil... Not the countries we like to compare ourselves to, are they?
We grew faster than Germany and Spain throughout the pandemic, we had fewer deaths than Italy (and about the same as Spain)
These are indeed our peer countries
That whole article by J B Murdoch on the FT is notable (and brave from the Remoaner FT). Much of the Britain-is-fucked Remoaner narrative is, it turns out, based on false statistics - which have had real negative effects as investors turn away from a country they perceive as doing particularly badly (when we are not)
Remoaners are literally talking the country down, with lies. It’s time for them to stop
Here's the thing, though.
We used to look down on Italy and Spain as second tier Euro nations. Our comparators were Germany and France. Proper, well run nations, with a solid economic base.
Perhaps have a word with your stalker and that rag he writes for.
You mean the France where law and order had broken down so badly that state visits had to be cancelled on TWO occasions this year ?
The Germany with its dependency on cheap but insecure Russian gas and cheap but polluting domestic coal ?
As for the political parties of either they're a level of dreadfulness beyond the UK.
So all countries have problems, good aspects alongside bad aspects, advantages together with disadvantages.
And the 'every other country' is overtaking the UK has been a common theme since the 1970s, probably even before then.
I've been in Turin for the last three days. Currently in Lingotto. Turin, Italy's fourth city is very lively. My only beef is the graffiti everywhere. Much brighter than the UK at present. Perhaps we need (beautifully put Dura Ace) a Fash Karen too.
Over to you Suella.
You do realise that the pejorative "Karen" is RACIST against the KAREN people of Burma?
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
There's definitely too much rote learning. It started in the schools. I don't know if it was as a result of all these SATs. But rote learning happens in the universities now too. My experience of many of today's students is they expect to be spoon fed education at university in the same way they were ar school. And in the workplace, quite a few graduates expect to be "trained" in the work in the same way. There seems to be a shortage of initiative, a lack of curiosity, and an unwillingness to self educate (through reading, reflecting on experiences, asking questions, and learning from colleagues/peers/mentors)
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it wasn't...
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
The insurance thing is worth looking at
The Tories should bring in some immediate interim ban. or "muzzling order", or something, then either adopt your policy, or the Aussie law. Long term the Aussie law is probably best, and seems to work well
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Hmm, effectively bringing back dog licensing (but with added insurance), though in tbe old days you simply paid 7s 6d at the Post Office ...
OMG finally Braverman will do something I finally agree with .
No one needs to own these types of dogs . Zero tolerance so if they then try and cross breed to deliver another dog from hell that should be banned aswell .
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
The insurance thing is worth looking at
The Tories should bring in some immediate interim ban. or "muzzling order", or something, then either adopt your policy, or the Aussie law. Long term the Aussie law is probably best, and seems to work well
Or both. The RSPCA do have a point in that it's not just the tabloid headline problem breeds that are problems, and if anyone can afford to buy a dog and take it t the vet they can damn well afford insurance.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Hmmm.
Does 3rd Party Liability in House Insurance cover things done by your dog?
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
There's definitely too much rote learning. It started in the schools. I don't know if it was as a result of all these SATs. But rote learning happens in the universities now too. My experience of many of today's students is they expect to be spoon fed education at university in the same way they were ar school. And in the workplace, quite a few graduates expect to be "trained" in the work in the same way. There seems to be a shortage of initiative, a lack of curiosity, and an unwillingness to self educate (through reading, reflecting on experiences, asking questions, and learning from colleagues/peers/mentors)
There is an awful lot of forced pace learning in schools, at all levels, because of the amount of content we have to cover. All school teaching is essentially teaching to the test.
As a result, there is also little point in bothering to investigate outside the set work as it won't help as much as it should.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it wasn't...
All dogs to be on leads whenever in public places.
Especially given the current RSPCA warnings about COVID puppies coming of age.
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Yes, tho it might just be true: when the story went viral on the Mail - that was it. The comments under the story are blistering and angry: ban these dogs, where is the government, etc
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Hmmm.
Does 3rd Party Liability in House Insurance cover things done by your dog?
This is from the LV information leaflet, so given the owner's responsibility for their animal, it would seem to be YES subject to exclusions:
Your legal liability to the public, as occupier of your home or in a personal capacity, for accidents of injury (£5,000,000)
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
I’d only add that I fully expect that Cumbria have their own set of disasters.
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Yes, tho it might just be true: when the story went viral on the Mail - that was it. The comments under the story are blistering and angry: ban these dogs, where is the government, etc
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
Red tape. Very un-Conservative.
Well, what other explanation is there, in all seriousness?
(Edit: very glad when something is done that is effective. I don't even like having pit bulls and Staffies around.)
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Hmmm.
Does 3rd Party Liability in House Insurance cover things done by your dog?
This is from the LV information leaflet, so given the owner's responsibility for their animal, it would seem to be YES subject to exclusions:
Your legal liability to the public, as occupier of your home or in a personal capacity, for accidents of injury (£5,000,000)
Is that only on site, like roof tiles falling off? Do walkies count?
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Just checking what you mean:
A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.
If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.
Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.
(*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.
A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.
Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
Because education is good for society, which is why we have education free at the point of access.
The low paid, and their children, ought to be able to go to university and also ought to be able to in midlife too not just at 18 without fear of attracting a 9% extra income tax with no guarantee of extra income.
The dustman analogy earlier, if the dustman at 35 or 40 decides to go to university and further themselves then that should not be an externality to be discouraged.
Plus of course the graduate tax as set up doesn't tax those who went to university. It taxes those who went to university after particular dates.
The current capped graduate tax that we have basically penalises most those in the middle, while letting the extremes pay relatively not much.
Middle earners can be on 9% extra income tax effectively their entire lives now. While low earners won't pay it, and high earners will repay it and this stop paying the tax.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it wasn't...
All dogs to be on leads whenever in public places.
Especially given the current RSPCA warnings about COVID puppies coming of age.
Lockdown puppies, rather than diseased mutts? Oh yes, they'll have been coming on stream for quite a while now.
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Just checking what you mean:
A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.
If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.
Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.
(*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.
A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.
Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
Because education is good for society, which is why we have education free at the point of access.
The low paid, and their children, ought to be able to go to university and also ought to be able to in midlife too not just at 18 without fear of attracting a 9% extra income tax with no guarantee of extra income.
The dustman analogy earlier, if the dustman at 35 or 40 decides to go to university and further themselves then that should not be an externality to be discouraged.
Plus of course the graduate tax as set up doesn't tax those who went to university. It taxes those who went to university after particular dates.
The current capped graduate tax that we have basically penalises most those in the middle, while letting the extremes pay relatively not much.
Middle earners can be on 9% extra income tax effectively their entire lives now. While low earners won't pay it, and high earners will repay it and this stop paying the tax.
We already have a system where children get free education and nobody seems particularly against that coming out of the public purse. Extending that to ~three extra years to be taken as and when you see fit, perhaps straight after school, maybe later, seems like a logical extension of that.
What I'm saying is, funding free education is simply a matter of degrees.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Hmmm.
Does 3rd Party Liability in House Insurance cover things done by your dog?
This is from the LV information leaflet, so given the owner's responsibility for their animal, it would seem to be YES subject to exclusions:
Your legal liability to the public, as occupier of your home or in a personal capacity, for accidents of injury (£5,000,000)
Is that only on site, like roof tiles falling off? Do walkies count?
It's the 'liability covered in a personal capacity', and what is excluded.
It is normal for 3rd Party Liability to be covered for household members riding a pedal cycle - eg collision with a pedestrian. That is the case for a vast majority of major insurance companies.
But I don't much about insurance liability / cover around pooches.
Cats are unlikely to be covered, since they take responsibility for themselves.
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Yes, tho it might just be true: when the story went viral on the Mail - that was it. The comments under the story are blistering and angry: ban these dogs, where is the government, etc
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
Red tape. Very un-Conservative.
Well, what other explanation is there, in all seriousness?
(Edit: very glad when something is done that is effective. I don't even like having pit bulls and Staffies around.)
One of my tenants has a blue staffie (along with 6 other dogs), which is remarkably silent and docile - I have never heard it bark. It's largely how the dog has been bred, trained and treated.
Of course - chipping is already a legal requirement.
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
I’d only add that I fully expect that Cumbria have their own set of disasters.
Mainly that police officer sightings are as rare as hen's teeth round here.....
Usually deployed to Barrow to deal with the drug trade.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
The insurance thing is worth looking at
The Tories should bring in some immediate interim ban. or "muzzling order", or something, then either adopt your policy, or the Aussie law. Long term the Aussie law is probably best, and seems to work well
Or both. The RSPCA do have a point in that it's not just the tabloid headline problem breeds that are problems, and if anyone can afford to buy a dog and take it t the vet they can damn well afford insurance.
I posted the below a week ago but it was hit by the curse of the new thread but was my experience of the strict approach re dogs in Switzerland if of any interest.
In my time in Switzerland I bought dogs, they all had to be registered with the Mairie each year and you received a different coloured and shaped tag for each year which had to be visible on their colour so it was easy for police etc to see if a dog wasn’t registered.
In order to first register them however you had to have them pass a behaviour test with a licensed tester, and you definitely needed obedience lessons first to pass test, and were allowed a certain number of failures only.
A good, although time consuming, way of controlling who has dogs and the behaviour of dog and owner and if you weren’t prepared to put the time and effort in then you shouldn’t be allowed a dog anyway - cuts down trend buying.
You had to have dog insurance and certain breeds were strictly banned - I had a business acquaintance who ended up being arrested when the police came to take and destroy his banned dog as he had been hiding it at other homes and then they caught him with it and he kicked off - I can understand his reaction.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Hmm, effectively bringing back dog licensing (but with added insurance), though in tbe old days you simply paid 7s 6d at the Post Office ...
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Hmm, effectively bringing back dog licensing (but with added insurance), though in tbe old days you simply paid 7s 6d at the Post Office ...
In the thirties Canvey Island had a very high number of unlicensed dogs. The police used to run sweeps every so often to catch them and fine the owners.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
There's definitely too much rote learning. It started in the schools. I don't know if it was as a result of all these SATs. But rote learning happens in the universities now too. My experience of many of today's students is they expect to be spoon fed education at university in the same way they were ar school. And in the workplace, quite a few graduates expect to be "trained" in the work in the same way. There seems to be a shortage of initiative, a lack of curiosity, and an unwillingness to self educate (through reading, reflecting on experiences, asking questions, and learning from colleagues/peers/mentors)
There is an awful lot of forced pace learning in schools, at all levels, because of the amount of content we have to cover. All school teaching is essentially teaching to the test.
As a result, there is also little point in bothering to investigate outside the set work as it won't help as much as it should.
I look back longingly to the days when we had teachers who had the time to encourage the kids to *think*. At the time, although I did a lot of *thinking*, I didn't realise how important that was as part of my education. It must be very frustrating to be a teacher currently.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
There's definitely too much rote learning. It started in the schools. I don't know if it was as a result of all these SATs. But rote learning happens in the universities now too. My experience of many of today's students is they expect to be spoon fed education at university in the same way they were ar school. And in the workplace, quite a few graduates expect to be "trained" in the work in the same way. There seems to be a shortage of initiative, a lack of curiosity, and an unwillingness to self educate (through reading, reflecting on experiences, asking questions, and learning from colleagues/peers/mentors)
There is an awful lot of forced pace learning in schools, at all levels, because of the amount of content we have to cover. All school teaching is essentially teaching to the test.
As a result, there is also little point in bothering to investigate outside the set work as it won't help as much as it should.
I look back longingly to the days when we had teachers who had the time to encourage the kids to *think*. At the time, although I did a lot of *thinking*, I didn't realise how important that was as part of my education. It must be very frustrating to be a teacher currently.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Oh, that's completely standard. You curry favour with the press by dropping in a reference to their campaign. In return they'll give you good press for the next few months. Win-win.
It happens in local politics too - you'll often see the Snodsbury Advertiser run a campaign on getting Bully XL dogs to stop shitting in potholes or whatever, and when a councillor gets a cursory commitment from a council officer to look into it, the councillor will tweet out "I'm acting on fixing Snodsbury's shit-infested potholes. Well done to the @SnodsburyAdvertiser for highlighting this vital issue"
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
In safeguarding:
This is how OFSTED do it.
Therefore, do the opposite.
(I wouldn't mind quite so much if they didn't, quite rightly, *expect* us to do the exact opposite!)
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
I’d only add that I fully expect that Cumbria have their own set of disasters.
Mainly that police officer sightings are as rare as hen's teeth round here.....
Usually deployed to Barrow to deal with the drug trade.
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Yes, tho it might just be true: when the story went viral on the Mail - that was it. The comments under the story are blistering and angry: ban these dogs, where is the government, etc
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
Red tape. Very un-Conservative.
Well, what other explanation is there, in all seriousness?
(Edit: very glad when something is done that is effective. I don't even like having pit bulls and Staffies around.)
One of my tenants has a blue staffie (along with 6 other dogs), which is remarkably silent and docile - I have never heard it bark. It's largely how the dog has been bred, trained and treated.
Of course - chipping is already a legal requirement.
True. So that is a helpful precedent. But chipping is for all dogs, easy enough to define! Not many wolves around.
Trouble is, one never knows how an unfamiliar dog has been trained or treated. I'm reminded that my mother's (large) setter was killed by an evil-minded bulldog (wouldn't let go, ISTR being told). And on a walk some years ago a staffie came up to me and tried to eat my hand - obviously a halfling being absurdly friendly. Or so it thought. But with jaws like that, I had to be very careful and not panic!
The next video will show one of these dogs ripping a child to shreds. Perhaps multiple children: killed
Maybe then the government will act. Fucking morons“
15 hours later the Home Secretary has banned these dogs. The power of PB, eh
Oh god shut up
Next time you get a law changed THROUGH THE SHEER PROWESS OF YOUR PB COMMENTARY do let us know
Suella has sent out a tweet. She has not changed the law.
When / if she does, then we can rejoice.
But since government these days largely consists of sending out tweets saying something must be done but not actually doing anything, I wouldn't crack open that champagne bottle just yet .....
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
I’d only add that I fully expect that Cumbria have their own set of disasters.
Mainly that police officer sightings are as rare as hen's teeth round here.....
Usually deployed to Barrow to deal with the drug trade.
The next video will show one of these dogs ripping a child to shreds. Perhaps multiple children: killed
Maybe then the government will act. Fucking morons“
15 hours later the Home Secretary has banned these dogs. The power of PB, eh
Oh god shut up
Next time you get a law changed THROUGH THE SHEER PROWESS OF YOUR PB COMMENTARY do let us know
Suella has sent out a tweet. She has not changed the law.
When / if she does, then we can rejoice.
But since government these days largely consists of sending out tweets saying something must be done but not actually doing anything, I wouldn't crack open that champagne bottle just yet .....
The RNLI, for some reason I can't possibly imagine, floats to the surface of my mind.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
The next video will show one of these dogs ripping a child to shreds. Perhaps multiple children: killed
Maybe then the government will act. Fucking morons“
15 hours later the Home Secretary has banned these dogs. The power of PB, eh
Oh god shut up
Next time you get a law changed THROUGH THE SHEER PROWESS OF YOUR PB COMMENTARY do let us know
Suella has sent out a tweet. She has not changed the law.
When / if she does, then we can rejoice.
But since government these days largely consists of sending out tweets saying something must be done but not actually doing anything, I wouldn't crack open that champagne bottle just yet .....
Besides, it's quite possible that Suella's Law has unfortunate side effects. True for any new law, but especially under the current government.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
I was going to say put the owner and the dog down but that might be a bit extreme! . Jail the owner and put the dog down seems fair . No ones forced the owner to keep these dogs . There are no excuses. These horror dogs are generally kept by low life scum who want to parade around looking all tough . They won’t be so tough once they’re turned into the prison bxtch and other inmates get wind that their dog murdered a child .
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
There's definitely too much rote learning. It started in the schools. I don't know if it was as a result of all these SATs. But rote learning happens in the universities now too. My experience of many of today's students is they expect to be spoon fed education at university in the same way they were ar school. And in the workplace, quite a few graduates expect to be "trained" in the work in the same way. There seems to be a shortage of initiative, a lack of curiosity, and an unwillingness to self educate (through reading, reflecting on experiences, asking questions, and learning from colleagues/peers/mentors)
There is an awful lot of forced pace learning in schools, at all levels, because of the amount of content we have to cover. All school teaching is essentially teaching to the test.
As a result, there is also little point in bothering to investigate outside the set work as it won't help as much as it should.
I look back longingly to the days when we had teachers who had the time to encourage the kids to *think*. At the time, although I did a lot of *thinking*, I didn't realise how important that was as part of my education. It must be very frustrating to be a teacher currently.
The question of content is bound up with the question of subject - and the whole things boils down to supposed knowledge andits transmission and how to do it and what its rules are. This is the essence of the Conservative understanding of education. If that was really the case, then anybody could be a teacher.....
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
Comments
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
We do a lot online. All lectures recorded (either a previous recording, or from the live delivery). Lots of online content.
However we have fallen down with online exams. Frankly, there is too big a temptation for students to cheat. So they do. And they get caught.
As a result, we are mostly back to in person pen and paper exams.
I am sad about this. Some exams are easy to write to test application of knowledge, and they still work on line, but too much other stuff doesn’t. There are debates about how much simple fact learning is needed, but I think someone passing a degree in subject x ought to have acquired a decent level of fact recall in subject x. Yes access to Google, and increasingly Chatgpt means easy ways to recall that formula, or specific drug etc, but there is a level of attainment that a student needs to meet to be able to understand what to search for and how to use it.
OK, it won't offer the same right of passage as going to uni in a strange town with new people and learning to stand on your own two feet, but it would enable people to be able to better themselves/gain a useful qualification at a much lower cost (no accommodation fees, for those who can live with mum and dad) and maybe at the same time hold down a job while paying their fees. A degree done this way could become feasible for someone of any age.
If they are working, it might take them longer to gain that degree (say 5-6 years rather than the standard 3 or 4, but it would be doable)
Indeed @HYUFD proposal is entirely self interest and is only likely to help a minority of estates in London and the south
To be fair, they were pretty good.
Hopefully Gregor will give them a good talking to at half time and fire them up for the second half.
And fundamentally, most students want to be in person.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12501641/Terrifying-moment-XL-Bully-dog-mauls-11-year-old-girl-street-crazed-animal-chases-attacks-two-men-tried-wrestle-youngster-free-jaws.html
I took 4 years to do a Master's remotely, 20 years ago. I had to do a lot of work on my own. I had access to the local university library by reciprocal agreement. I had work colleagues rather than fellow students to discuss my coursework with and I got some very different perspectives. It was definitely worth doing. Had to attend for exams and a couple of study days. And my graduation
You can't always get what you want.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-must-ban-xl-bully-30642563
The Mirror started the bandwagon and now pretty much every other paper has joined in from the Observer to the Telegraph to the Economist and Spectator
And no, it ain't a moral panic. Dog deaths have doubled or tripled thanks to the XL, and there are daily videos of maulings and savagings
A ban is inevitable, but the pathetic Tories will make sure they do it that bit too late, after some grotesque amd filmed child killing. Is my guess
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
Boks must be faves, Ireland/France next, then All Blacks/England?
France v Boks final would be epic. Boks to edge it. Maybe
They are the cocksucker blues!
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_people
Ireland will also have something to say about this!
Hard to see a winner outside those 3
"This is appalling. The American XL Bully is a clear and lethal danger to our communities, particularly to children.
We can’t go on like this.
I have commissioned urgent advice on banning them."
https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1700924751646982312?s=20
GO SUELLA
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it wasn't...
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
The Tories should bring in some immediate interim ban. or "muzzling order", or something, then either adopt your policy, or the Aussie law. Long term the Aussie law is probably best, and seems to work well
No one needs to own these types of dogs . Zero tolerance so if they then try and cross breed to deliver another dog from hell that should be banned aswell .
Now all set your clocks for 7.55pm and make sure you tune in for the World's Greatest National Anthem.
Expect it to go downhill after that.
Does 3rd Party Liability in House Insurance cover things done by your dog?
As a result, there is also little point in bothering to investigate outside the set work as it won't help as much as it should.
Especially given the current RSPCA warnings about COVID puppies coming of age.
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
The by now well-worn cycle of -
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower
- a report saying all is for the best
- a senior officer saying "nothing to see here"
- nothing being done
- a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done
- Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/10/met-chief-dismissed-child-safety-warnings-in-wake-of-baby-p-case-says-former-detective
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
Your legal liability to the public, as occupier of your home or
in a personal capacity, for accidents of injury (£5,000,000)
Well, what other explanation is there, in all seriousness?
(Edit: very glad when something is done that is effective. I don't even like having pit bulls and Staffies around.)
The low paid, and their children, ought to be able to go to university and also ought to be able to in midlife too not just at 18 without fear of attracting a 9% extra income tax with no guarantee of extra income.
The dustman analogy earlier, if the dustman at 35 or 40 decides to go to university and further themselves then that should not be an externality to be discouraged.
Plus of course the graduate tax as set up doesn't tax those who went to university. It taxes those who went to university after particular dates.
The current capped graduate tax that we have basically penalises most those in the middle, while letting the extremes pay relatively not much.
Middle earners can be on 9% extra income tax effectively their entire lives now. While low earners won't pay it, and high earners will repay it and this stop paying the tax.
What I'm saying is, funding free education is simply a matter of degrees.
I'll get my coat.
i first pointed up this horrible dog video at about 3am last night, as being highly notable
“ LeonLeon Posts: 37,074
2:59AM
As I predicted. Sadly
An XL Bully captured on camera savaging multiple people
https://x.com/bullywatchuk/status/1700617924321443985?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
The next video will show one of these dogs ripping a child to shreds. Perhaps multiple children: killed
Maybe then the government will act. Fucking morons“
15 hours later the Home Secretary has banned these dogs. The power of PB, eh
It is normal for 3rd Party Liability to be covered for household members riding a pedal cycle - eg collision with a pedestrian. That is the case for a vast majority of major insurance companies.
But I don't much about insurance liability / cover around pooches.
Cats are unlikely to be covered, since they take responsibility for themselves.
Of course - chipping is already a legal requirement.
Usually deployed to Barrow to deal with the drug trade.
In my time in Switzerland I bought dogs, they all had to be registered with the Mairie each year and you received a different coloured and shaped tag for each year which had to be visible on their colour so it was easy for police etc to see if a dog wasn’t registered.
In order to first register them however you had to have them pass a behaviour test with a licensed tester, and you definitely needed obedience lessons first to pass test, and were allowed a certain number of failures only.
A good, although time consuming, way of controlling who has dogs and the behaviour of dog and owner and if you weren’t prepared to put the time and effort in then you shouldn’t be allowed a dog anyway - cuts down trend buying.
You had to have dog insurance and certain breeds were strictly banned - I had a business acquaintance who ended up being arrested when the police came to take and destroy his banned dog as he had been hiding it at other homes and then they caught him with it and he kicked off - I can understand his reaction.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
Please see my next comment....
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
It happens in local politics too - you'll often see the Snodsbury Advertiser run a campaign on getting Bully XL dogs to stop shitting in potholes or whatever, and when a councillor gets a cursory commitment from a council officer to look into it, the councillor will tweet out "I'm acting on fixing Snodsbury's shit-infested potholes. Well done to the @SnodsburyAdvertiser for highlighting this vital issue"
This is how OFSTED do it.
Therefore, do the opposite.
(I wouldn't mind quite so much if they didn't, quite rightly, *expect* us to do the exact opposite!)
Trouble is, one never knows how an unfamiliar dog has been trained or treated. I'm reminded that my mother's (large) setter was killed by an evil-minded bulldog (wouldn't let go, ISTR being told). And on a walk some years ago a staffie came up to me and tried to eat my hand - obviously a halfling being absurdly friendly. Or so it thought. But with jaws like that, I had to be very careful and not panic!
When / if she does, then we can rejoice.
But since government these days largely consists of sending out tweets saying something must be done but not actually doing anything, I wouldn't crack open that champagne bottle just yet .....
https://www.battersea.org.uk/pet-advice/dog-advice/search-dog-advice/cost-owning-dog
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
The Stones were making an unusual foray north of the river, but their reputation at the Crawdaddy had preceded them, so they were fine.
Edit: Ok, you can switch off now.
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The change in political identification in the medical profession over the last decade in the US is quite remarkable.
The GOP Turned Its Back on Science. So Science Turned Its Backs on the GOP.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/08/pennsylvania-medical-establishment-gop-00114316