Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The overnight news that has made me most angry – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,731
edited September 2023 in General
The overnight news that has made me most angry – politicalbetting.com

This is disgraceful https://t.co/mkmliHYkfl

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,813
    School uniforms are an English fetish.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,813
    FPT
    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    XL Bully attacks a smaller dog. Short brutal video

    How long can HMG delay this “new legislation”?


    https://x.com/pursuitofprog/status/1701998157360517166?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    I tend to think the problem is with the owners not the dogs. You get owners that can't control their dogs. Perhaps the answer is a license for a dog above a certain weight or breed. I'm just not sure that outlawing breeds is going to work.
    Under current law it is possible for the owner of a dog that attacks another dog to get a six month sentence, and up to 5 years if it attacks a person:

    https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public#:~:text=You can get an unlimited,or fined (or both).

    There have already been jailing of the keepers of Bully XL owners:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/mother-of-boy-killed-by-out-of-control-dog-criticises-uk-ministers-for-failing-to-act

    We need to use these sentencing powers more often and with greater publicity.
    It is sad that prison is touted as the solution to this. Misery piled on top of misery. The enthusiasm for prison is one way in which this website sometimes replicates the daily mail comments page. Large parts of Europe don't have this type of problem with dangerous dogs and also have far smaller prison populations. Look for a solution other than prison.
    If people own dogs that could be dangerously out of control, or injure people then they can end their jail risk by destroying the dog.

    The effect is the same as a knife attack for example.
    @Foxy A lot of people in this category are vulnerable. They don't understand risk. The risk of jail is not going to stop them coming in to possession of these animals, just as it doesn't stop them from doing all sorts of other stupid things. Incarceration should be a solution of last resort, not the first solution to every problem that comes up. Why not solve this problem by bogging dangerous dog owners down in paperwork, expensive training exercises, mental health assessments - similar way to firearms licensing. If they don't have the license then the dog gets taken away and put down. That way you don't have to wait for a tragedy to happen to do something. Be proactive rather than reactive.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 599
    I have a theory why most British men are generally more badly dressed than most European men - it is because they are made to wear school uniform and dont get into the habit of choosing clothes to wear....
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 599
    My school uniform rules were very relaxed and largely unenforceable and ignored (Welsh Valley comprehensive). More of a dress code with a specific tie (which was mostly not worn after the age of 14)
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,245
    What a bloody stupid school.
    Those attitudes were out of date decades ago.

    Await Tories prattling about 'discipline'.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,919
    darkage said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    XL Bully attacks a smaller dog. Short brutal video

    How long can HMG delay this “new legislation”?


    https://x.com/pursuitofprog/status/1701998157360517166?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    I tend to think the problem is with the owners not the dogs. You get owners that can't control their dogs. Perhaps the answer is a license for a dog above a certain weight or breed. I'm just not sure that outlawing breeds is going to work.
    Under current law it is possible for the owner of a dog that attacks another dog to get a six month sentence, and up to 5 years if it attacks a person:

    https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public#:~:text=You can get an unlimited,or fined (or both).

    There have already been jailing of the keepers of Bully XL owners:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/mother-of-boy-killed-by-out-of-control-dog-criticises-uk-ministers-for-failing-to-act

    We need to use these sentencing powers more often and with greater publicity.
    It is sad that prison is touted as the solution to this. Misery piled on top of misery. The enthusiasm for prison is one way in which this website sometimes replicates the daily mail comments page. Large parts of Europe don't have this type of problem with dangerous dogs and also have far smaller prison populations. Look for a solution other than prison.
    If people own dogs that could be dangerously out of control, or injure people then they can end their jail risk by destroying the dog.

    The effect is the same as a knife attack for example.
    @Foxy A lot of people in this category are vulnerable. They don't understand risk. The risk of jail is not going to stop them coming in to possession of these animals, just as it doesn't stop them from doing all sorts of other stupid things. Incarceration should be a solution of last resort, not the first solution to every problem that comes up. Why not solve this problem by bogging dangerous dog owners down in paperwork, expensive training exercises, mental health assessments - similar way to firearms licensing. If they don't have the license then the dog gets taken away and put down. That way you don't have to wait for a tragedy to happen to do something. Be proactive rather than reactive.
    Getting into prison, in the U.K., takes a fair amount of effort. Conflating stories from the US about sentencing rates and conditions is something that generation Tik Tok does.

    People in the category you describe will ignore the paperwork and licensing.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,611
    Yesterday somebody was asking about sexual harassment in schools.

    The answer is it does go on, very frequently. However, because it is impossible to work in education without a reference from your previous school, the pressure to accept a settlement including that reference and sign an NDA is immense.

    I’m not even sure if that is legal, certainly not for criminal matters, but it has happened to colleagues of mine in every single school I have worked in. Indeed, in one school I kicked up such a fuss over the head using NDAs to cover up his predatory behaviour he threatened me with violence.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 599
    Living in Qatar, i have seen many instances of sexual harrasment involving female expat teaching staff. Mostly by the female teachers after a boozy Friday brunch.....
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 599
    Todays RWC prediction - only one match - France v Uruguay. This will be very one sided and likely to set the point scoring record for the tournament so far with France winning by 60-80 points.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,022
    edited September 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Yesterday somebody was asking about sexual harassment in schools.

    The answer is it does go on, very frequently. However, because it is impossible to work in education without a reference from your previous school, the pressure to accept a settlement including that reference and sign an NDA is immense.

    I’m not even sure if that is legal, certainly not for criminal matters, but it has happened to colleagues of mine in every single school I have worked in. Indeed, in one school I kicked up such a fuss over the head using NDAs to cover up his predatory behaviour he threatened me with violence.

    I don’t really understand how NDAs would work legally. Victim Y is paid compensation and signs a NDA. At a later date Y breaks the NDA, and says publicly that x sexually assaulted her. X then sues Y, on the grounds that he paid her several thousands not to reveal that he sexually assaulted her?

    Aren’t they just designed to intimidate? And they won’t work if you refuse to be intimidated. I note that Harvey Weinstein has yet to initiate legal action against those who breached the NDAs concerning his predatory behaviour.
  • Options
    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,968
    edited September 2023
    If true, then yes - one to be angry about.

    Monty Python in true life.

    Exactly the same questions that we have seen before - the philosophy of all pupils being treated the same is excellent, however when it's run by, as pointed out, a man with a clipboard and possibly a financial incentive, La-La-Land beckons.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,038
    edited September 2023

    School uniforms are a thing around the world.

    The problem here is clipboardism taken to the point of insanity.

    Isn't this use of a controlled supplier a covert way of excluding "difficult" children, and those with poor parents? Thereby making the schools life easier, and another schools harder?
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,968
    Penddu2 said:

    I have a theory why most British men are generally more badly dressed than most European men - it is because they are made to wear school uniform and dont get into the habit of choosing clothes to wear....

    I was complimented for my dress sense yesterday, which was a shock - but then I've been more or less locked down for most of this year.

    Just chinos and a Jeff Banks patterned shirt - like a younger, slimmer version of James May without the chins, the pipe, and the Worzel Gummidge hairdo.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 599

    School uniforms are a thing around the world.

    The problem here is clipboardism taken to the point of insanity.

    School uniforms seem common in Asia, but not so much elsewhere. But you are right - it is the mindless application of petty rules which are the problem - and the insistence on using specified vendor only - instead of allowing generic clothing from a supermarket
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,611

    ydoethur said:

    Yesterday somebody was asking about sexual harassment in schools.

    The answer is it does go on, very frequently. However, because it is impossible to work in education without a reference from your previous school, the pressure to accept a settlement including that reference and sign an NDA is immense.

    I’m not even sure if that is legal, certainly not for criminal matters, but it has happened to colleagues of mine in every single school I have worked in. Indeed, in one school I kicked up such a fuss over the head using NDAs to cover up his predatory behaviour he threatened me with violence.

    I don’t really understand how NDAs would work legally. Victim Y is paid compensation and signs a NDA. At a later date Y breaks the NDA, and says publicly that x sexually assaulted her. X then sues Y, on the grounds that he paid her several thousands not to reveal that he sexually assaulted her?

    Aren’t they just designed to intimidate? And they won’t work if you refuse to be intimidated. I note that Harvey Weinstein has yet to initiate legal action against those who breached the NDAs concerning his predatory behaviour.
    Because if you are refused a reference from a previous school employer you won’t be offered a job in education again. So people take the money and the abuse in silence.

    I agree, it’s disgusting. But it definitely happens.

    If Keegan wants to do something useful sorting that out would help a lot. But since she doesn’t even act on falling classrooms or major safeguarding breaches involving Ofsted I won’t hold my breath.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,038
    darkage said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    XL Bully attacks a smaller dog. Short brutal video

    How long can HMG delay this “new legislation”?


    https://x.com/pursuitofprog/status/1701998157360517166?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    I tend to think the problem is with the owners not the dogs. You get owners that can't control their dogs. Perhaps the answer is a license for a dog above a certain weight or breed. I'm just not sure that outlawing breeds is going to work.
    Under current law it is possible for the owner of a dog that attacks another dog to get a six month sentence, and up to 5 years if it attacks a person:

    https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public#:~:text=You can get an unlimited,or fined (or both).

    There have already been jailing of the keepers of Bully XL owners:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/mother-of-boy-killed-by-out-of-control-dog-criticises-uk-ministers-for-failing-to-act

    We need to use these sentencing powers more often and with greater publicity.
    It is sad that prison is touted as the solution to this. Misery piled on top of misery. The enthusiasm for prison is one way in which this website sometimes replicates the daily mail comments page. Large parts of Europe don't have this type of problem with dangerous dogs and also have far smaller prison populations. Look for a solution other than prison.
    If people own dogs that could be dangerously out of control, or injure people then they can end their jail risk by destroying the dog.

    The effect is the same as a knife attack for example.
    @Foxy A lot of people in this category are vulnerable. They don't understand risk. The risk of jail is not going to stop them coming in to possession of these animals, just as it doesn't stop them from doing all sorts of other stupid things. Incarceration should be a solution of last resort, not the first solution to every problem that comes up. Why not solve this problem by bogging dangerous dog owners down in paperwork, expensive training exercises, mental health assessments - similar way to firearms licensing. If they don't have the license then the dog gets taken away and put down. That way you don't have to wait for a tragedy to happen to do something. Be proactive rather than reactive.
    I was pointing out that those who own dangerous dogs that attack other dogs or people are already subject to law including custodial sentences.

    Like much of our law it isn't enforced, and the answer to lack of enforcement isn't other laws that also won't be used.

    There are also people like this owner that are really in denial about their potential killer:

    XL Bully owner who allows children to pet dog insists he is 'loving' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12512693/xl-bully-owners-hit-loving-dog-amid-calls-ban-breed.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594
    edited September 2023
    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,038
    Penddu2 said:

    School uniforms are a thing around the world.

    The problem here is clipboardism taken to the point of insanity.

    School uniforms seem common in Asia, but not so much elsewhere. But you are right - it is the mindless application of petty rules which are the problem - and the insistence on using specified vendor only - instead of allowing generic clothing from a supermarket
    Very common in Africa too, though usually a simple white shirt and trousers, or blouse and skirt.

    It is quite striking to see how immaculate African school children dress, even coming out of shanty towns.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,038
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yesterday somebody was asking about sexual harassment in schools.

    The answer is it does go on, very frequently. However, because it is impossible to work in education without a reference from your previous school, the pressure to accept a settlement including that reference and sign an NDA is immense.

    I’m not even sure if that is legal, certainly not for criminal matters, but it has happened to colleagues of mine in every single school I have worked in. Indeed, in one school I kicked up such a fuss over the head using NDAs to cover up his predatory behaviour he threatened me with violence.

    I don’t really understand how NDAs would work legally. Victim Y is paid compensation and signs a NDA. At a later date Y breaks the NDA, and says publicly that x sexually assaulted her. X then sues Y, on the grounds that he paid her several thousands not to reveal that he sexually assaulted her?

    Aren’t they just designed to intimidate? And they won’t work if you refuse to be intimidated. I note that Harvey Weinstein has yet to initiate legal action against those who breached the NDAs concerning his predatory behaviour.
    Because if you are refused a reference from a previous school employer you won’t be offered a job in education again. So people take the money and the abuse in silence.

    I agree, it’s disgusting. But it definitely happens.

    If Keegan wants to do something useful sorting that out would help a lot. But since she doesn’t even act on falling classrooms or major safeguarding breaches involving Ofsted I won’t hold my breath.
    References used to be a big issue in Medicine too, and similarly part of how a blind eye was turned to abuses. These are now only looked at after appointment, and are generally anodyne to the point of being useless.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594
    edited September 2023
    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,090
    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.
  • Options

    School uniforms are a thing around the world.

    The problem here is clipboardism taken to the point of insanity.

    School uniforms done smartly is a reasonable and sensible thing.

    The problem here is best case as you described, cynically, it has the stench of corruption. The school probably gets a kickback from the "official suppliers" would be my guess.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,071
    This is simply a way of "encouraging" those children or their parents with special needs or no prospect of 5 GCSE's to find another school to boost exam outcomes and save money and time.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,150
    The school uniform thing is weird - the kids usually look scruffier as the uniforms have to be affordable so blazers and trousers aren’t going to be good quality materials and cuts so just look shit anyway and kids grow at a rate of knots so they start a term in uniform that looks to big and end it looking like they have Rishi’s tailor.

    Would be much better if schools said pupils had to wear plain trousers or skirts from a set colour palate - dark blue, black, grey, bottle green with plain white shirts with a collar, plain blazer or jumper and a school tie that is the same for everyone.

    Still looks smarter than shit uniforms but easier for parents to buy if financially squeezed and doesn’t allow the arms race of wealthy parents dressing their kids in designer gear and depressing those who don’t have the money.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    You should probably clear your search history.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594
    Penddu2 said:

    School uniforms are a thing around the world.

    The problem here is clipboardism taken to the point of insanity.

    School uniforms seem common in Asia, but not so much elsewhere. But you are right - it is the mindless application of petty rules which are the problem - and the insistence on using specified vendor only - instead of allowing generic clothing from a supermarket
    The two skirts in question are not the same. Criticise what appear to be stringent uniform rules but the particular example the BBC is using is misleading. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,919
    ydoethur said:

    Yesterday somebody was asking about sexual harassment in schools.

    The answer is it does go on, very frequently. However, because it is impossible to work in education without a reference from your previous school, the pressure to accept a settlement including that reference and sign an NDA is immense.

    I’m not even sure if that is legal, certainly not for criminal matters, but it has happened to colleagues of mine in every single school I have worked in. Indeed, in one school I kicked up such a fuss over the head using NDAs to cover up his predatory behaviour he threatened me with violence.

    Abuse covered up with NDAs is a familiar structure, to those who’ve come across organisations where criminal behaviour is…. rampant.

    The use of the reference system as part of this bullying behaviour is also completely typical.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,919

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
  • Options
    The school appears to be ignoring statutory guidance (which is basically as close to law as it is possible to get without being law). The guidance says that "Parents should be able to purchase generic items of uniform from a range of retailers giving them choice and value for money." Holderness insist that skirts must be purchased from their official supplier despite the fact it is clearly a generic item. Interestingly, there is no such requirement for trousers. So they are in breach of statutory guidance and possibly also of the Equality Act.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
    That or the Waffen SS.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    This is simply a way of "encouraging" those children or their parents with special needs or no prospect of 5 GCSE's to find another school to boost exam outcomes and save money and time.

    Oh, you cynic realist. Though I suspect what it also identifies is those pupils and families who may... wish to question other parts of a school's approach. Playing pass the parcel with people like that is in the interests of individual schools, but not the system as a whole.

    The story schools tell themselves about skirts and trousers is that branding then the only way to ensure that the cut is suitably unfashionably loose. At one place I taught, there was a thriving needlework culture of buying the official trousers and... adjusting them.

    Still, a valuable life skill, I suppose.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,919
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yesterday somebody was asking about sexual harassment in schools.

    The answer is it does go on, very frequently. However, because it is impossible to work in education without a reference from your previous school, the pressure to accept a settlement including that reference and sign an NDA is immense.

    I’m not even sure if that is legal, certainly not for criminal matters, but it has happened to colleagues of mine in every single school I have worked in. Indeed, in one school I kicked up such a fuss over the head using NDAs to cover up his predatory behaviour he threatened me with violence.

    I don’t really understand how NDAs would work legally. Victim Y is paid compensation and signs a NDA. At a later date Y breaks the NDA, and says publicly that x sexually assaulted her. X then sues Y, on the grounds that he paid her several thousands not to reveal that he sexually assaulted her?

    Aren’t they just designed to intimidate? And they won’t work if you refuse to be intimidated. I note that Harvey Weinstein has yet to initiate legal action against those who breached the NDAs concerning his predatory behaviour.
    Because if you are refused a reference from a previous school employer you won’t be offered a job in education again. So people take the money and the abuse in silence.

    I agree, it’s disgusting. But it definitely happens.

    If Keegan wants to do something useful sorting that out would help a lot. But since she doesn’t even act on falling classrooms or major safeguarding breaches involving Ofsted I won’t hold my breath.
    Make applying for/enforcing an NDA a sacking offence in schools.

    Though I would add that this policy should be introduced under an NDA, so anyone trying to complain about not being allowed to fire NDAs at people would be in breach of an NDA.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    edited September 2023
    Penddu2 said:

    School uniforms are a thing around the world.

    The problem here is clipboardism taken to the point of insanity.

    School uniforms seem common in Asia, but not so much elsewhere. But you are right - it is the mindless application of petty rules which are the problem - and the insistence on using specified vendor only - instead of allowing generic clothing from a supermarket
    They were unknown in Denmark when I grew up, and the American-run international school didn't have them either. The supposed issue of kids rivalling each other with expensive fashion clothes never arose either, but I suppose where it does they'll find other ways to assert their alleged superiority to each other. It's all a lot of nonsense.

    However, the specific British issue is the sweetheart deal which schools cut with expensive local suppliers - the school gets a rake-off for every uniform sold. I took it up when an MP by writing to the competition authorites, arguing that parents should be free to choose the cheapest supplier if the clothing was otherwise identical (whether they really were in this case is a side-issue). My complaint was rejected - I forget why - but I still think it's indefensible - a clear use of monopoly power by both the school and the supplier.

    Incidentally, the punishment of the child for a decision by the parents is even more indefensible. WTAF?
  • Options

    School uniforms are a thing around the world.

    The problem here is clipboardism taken to the point of insanity.

    School uniforms done smartly is a reasonable and sensible thing.

    The problem here is best case as you described, cynically, it has the stench of corruption. The school probably gets a kickback from the "official suppliers" would be my guess.
    When I lived in Central Asia it was definitely corruption. Education was supposed to be free of charge but the cost of the uniform from the mandatory supplier in many schools was exorbitant and the school administrations did receive kickbacks. I have a feeling that there was a successful human rights case on the violation of the right to education. I didn't expect to see this kind of corruption in the UK: here it tends more to be kept further removed from the general population.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,252
    TOPPING said:

    Penddu2 said:

    School uniforms are a thing around the world.

    The problem here is clipboardism taken to the point of insanity.

    School uniforms seem common in Asia, but not so much elsewhere. But you are right - it is the mindless application of petty rules which are the problem - and the insistence on using specified vendor only - instead of allowing generic clothing from a supermarket
    The two skirts in question are not the same. Criticise what appear to be stringent uniform rules but the particular example the BBC is using is misleading. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
    A hideous crime
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    You should probably clear your search history.
    I kept it clean.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594
    edited September 2023

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,968
    Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.

    We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.

    Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.

    A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".

    Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.

    Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.

    Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.

    What a shitshow this Govt has become.
  • Options
    Meanwhile, in other education news,

    Tens of thousands of sixth-form students could be left without a suitable study programme under the Government’s “reckless” plans to reform post-16 vocational qualifications, a report suggests.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/btec-tlevels-geoff-barton-robert-halfon-government-b2411108.html

    Reforming BTec qualifications wasn't itself a bad idea, but the replacements (T Levels, to cash in on A Level cachet) are running late, very hard for schools and small colleges to deliver, and probably too difficult for the core target audience.

    But "world class".

  • Options
    Joe Biden is becoming dangerous. Remove him now before it’s too late
    America and the free world can’t handle much more of this. Democrats must act to replace the president

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/13/biden-is-becoming-dangerous-remove-him-before-its-too-late/
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    As in the Father Ted conversation:

    Father Dougal: I read an article about priest's socks, that priest's socks are blacker than any other socks.
    Father Ted: That's right. Sometimes you see lay people wearing apparently black socks, but if you look closely, they are really very, very, very very dark blue.
    Father Dougal: That's true. I thought my Uncle Tommy was wearing black socks but when i look at them closely, they were just very, very, very, very, very, very dark blue.
    Father Ted: Never buy black socks in a normal shop. They will shaft you every time.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,014
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,919
    A

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    As in the Father Ted conversation:

    Father Dougal: I read an article about priest's socks, that priest's socks are blacker than any other socks.
    Father Ted: That's right. Sometimes you see lay people wearing apparently black socks, but if you look closely, they are really very, very, very very dark blue.
    Father Dougal: That's true. I thought my Uncle Tommy was wearing black socks but when i look at them closely, they were just very, very, very, very, very, very dark blue.
    Father Ted: Never buy black socks in a normal shop. They will shaft you every time.
    Archer and the Tactical Turtleneck

    https://archer.fandom.com/wiki/Turtleneck


    He told Woodhouse to sort them by color, because five are dark black and the other five are a slightly darker black.
  • Options

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    As in the Father Ted conversation:

    Father Dougal: I read an article about priest's socks, that priest's socks are blacker than any other socks.
    Father Ted: That's right. Sometimes you see lay people wearing apparently black socks, but if you look closely, they are really very, very, very very dark blue.
    Father Dougal: That's true. I thought my Uncle Tommy was wearing black socks but when i look at them closely, they were just very, very, very, very, very, very dark blue.
    Father Ted: Never buy black socks in a normal shop. They will shaft you every time.
    See also fine British (made in France) passports.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,919
    On the importance of colour in clothing. A classic ad

    https://youtu.be/NEsPN_yR7KE?si=UXVd__r-JeXBo6ZR
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,798
    MattW said:

    Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.

    We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.

    Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.

    A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".

    Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.

    Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.

    Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.

    What a shitshow this Govt has become.

    wait till you see the next one
  • Options
    Barnesian said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
    Yes.

    Schools have a uniform selection of colours they can select between that are stocked by supermarkets (and required by statutory guidance mentioned above). Hence why all the kids going to primary schools in blue or red t shirts have the same shade of blue or red.

    If the school has chosen an improper colour that's the schools fault, not the parents. Like a school insisting their uniform t shirt isn't red, it's magenta.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,837
    edited September 2023

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Not that much of a surprise, Heseltine has long been a diehard Remainer and was the candidate of the National Liberals in the 1950s

    Would that be the National Liberals who fought six elections as allies of the Conservative Party before merging with them in 1968?
    You forget that HYUFD wants Liberal Conservatives like Heseltine and myself out of the Party so it can return to true 1820s Toryism like he and Mogg want.

    Trouble with that is the Tories without any Liberals won't win any elections.

    Actually, if the Tories are going to be illiberal, there's no trouble with that.
    You voted for Brexit and for Farage, you aren't that liberal.

    On a forced choice against Labour some liberals may opt for the Conservatives, it doesn't make them ideological conservatives, indeed in LD v Con marginals many would vote LD
    I know reading comprehension or understanding others viewpoints isn't your strongpoint, but I have never voted for Farage to be in Parliament and never would. I voted for him to be expelled from Parliament in fact.

    Yes I voted for Brexit, after much deliberation, I was initially pro-European and got won around by the arguments of amongst others @Richard_Tyndall and others. Mr Tyndall of course is another liberal right winger on this board who voted for Brexit, there's more than one of us.

    Brexit is not a liberal v illiberal divide. Many liberal rightwingers voted Remain yes, like Clarke or Heseltine etc, while other liberal rightwingers voted Leave.

    I absolutely would vote LD in an LD v Con marginal currently, so long as the LD candidate is not a NIMBY. I would not have in 2015. That is the problem the Conservatives have, lose us 'Cameroon' liberals and the party is going to struggle to remain in Downing Street.

    But being illiberal, the party doesn't deserve to remain in Downing Street, so that's fine.
    Almost all LD candidates are NIMBYs.

    You happily voted for Boris to leave the EU and leave the single market and end free movement at the last election, you clearly aren't that liberal
    Because its not a liberal v illiberal issue.

    I am very pro-migration, I simply am not discriminatory towards Europeans and against other ethnicities.

    I want to have immigration, but treat migrants fairly whether they be from Austria or Australia, Belgium or Bangladesh, Croatia or Cambodia. We should welcome the best and the brightest from around the entire planet, not just one little corner of it.
    You clearly aren't very pro migration, otherwise you wouldn't have wanted to end free movement to and from the EU. You might want to loosen immigration restrictions for other nations too if you are a genuine liberal, you wouldn't want to do the reverse and restrict EU migration.

    You could just about be a genuine liberal and have backed Brexit but wanted to have stayed in the single market with free movement, you didn't
    This is just nonsense coming from your illiberal perspective.

    Its funny how other liberal posters like @kjh can understand this, but you can't. Its because you try to pigeonhole everyone into set boxes of what a "true Tory" or "true liberal" looks like, but life and politics are more fluid than that.

    I think its entirely reasonable to say if we're going to have net migration of say 250k a year then those people coming in should be the best and brightest 250k net from around the world, treated evenly and fairly regardless of ethnic background. Rather than saying we accept 150k net from free movement, so we'll only accept 100k net from the rest of the world via stricter migration rules on the rest of the world to compensate for free movement migration.

    I'm pleased to see that so far, what I wanted is what's happened and not what Farage wanted. Since free movement ended, we've not seen a collapse in immigration thankfully, instead the draconian restrictions on rest of the world migration have been eased to counter the end of free movement. Personally from my liberal perspective, I find that very welcome. Others, like Faragists or just die hard EUphiles find that a failure.
    Do you believe government immigration policy picks the "best and brightest"? I think it picks those who have certain high-paying jobs (or who are willing to do certain low-paying jobs). It picks the upper middle class, and the world is not so meritocratic that the upper middle class are actually the "best and brightest".

    Isn't it a bit... well, eugenics-y to talk of the "best and brightest"?
    In a liberal free market economy, then its the best proxy we have for the 'best and brightest'.

    And its certainly less racist than saying 'white Europeans welcome, anyone else not so fast'.
    EU free movement never judged people on their skin colour. You could come as a brown Swede or a black Frenchman, to think of 2 people I know. So, maybe don't say silly things?

    If you want to base your immigration policy on what's best for the economy, fair enough, but you were going a step further in claiming that the people thus picked are the "best and brightest". If you really wanted to select the "best and brightest", I'm sure you could come up with some sort of aptitude test that would be better at picking the "best and brightest".
    Considering that the EU is even more white than the UK, yes it did absolutely did indirectly judge people by skin colour. Its not at all silly to say that, even if there's exceptions that prove the rule.

    You could quite legitimately argue that under the definition of indirect discrimination in the Equality Act, that free movement for the heavily-white EU nations and very restricted migration for the predominantly not-white rest of the world, absolutely would be indirectly discriminating against people via a protected characteristic.

    Now of course as it was done via primary legislation, it was not unlawful, despite that, but there's a difference between what's lawful and what's right.
    You keep pushing this ridiculous argument and you never acknowledge when challenged that the real reason is FoM is one of the pillars of the single market, which is all about regional economic integration.

    It's not and never has been about race.

    It's just that allowing labour to move freely is a central part of a single market. We have the same thing within the UK. The fact that it's trivial to move from Lincoln to Glasgow yet non-trivial to move from Lesotho to Glasgow, is not racism.
    Key to combatting racism is to combat practices of indirect racism, which were not intended to be racist.

    It doesn't matter if you didn't intend to be racist, but are because of ignorance or something else, you're still being racist if you are.

    EG in America many of their universities have policies of discriminating in favour of "legacy" applications. Given their legacy applicants are disproportionately white, this is a racist policy even if its not its intention. The intention is to support those who have made donations or contributed to the university in the past etc, but its still discriminatory even if you have what you consider to be benign intentions.
    Yes, I'm well aware of the substance of your argument, and you're still wrong.

    If we examine first the law because it gives us a good entry into the ethics. When it comes to indirect discrimination against people with protected characteristics, an example would be hiring someone who needs to interact with customers who speak Welsh. Clearly, when stipulating that the candidate is a fluent Welsh speaker, you're going to be filtering out disproportionately large numbers of people on a number of characteristics. The racial, age, and religious profile of the average Welsh speaker is different to the national average. But such a requirement would be legal and ethical. Legal because of the objective justification rule, and ethical because putting such an absurd restraint on employers that prevents them making good hiring decisions core to their business model would be a restriction on their economic freedom. Moreover, it would end up having detrimental effects on those customers with the very same range of protected characteristics!

    The same thing goes for immigration policy. The fact that we had more relaxed rules on workers from EU countries was part of the objective justification of closer economic integration with neighbouring countries. It was a key aim of British foreign policy to reduce trade friction within our region for the economic well-being of our population. The four freedoms: goods, services, capital and persons, are what was judged to be the pillars of economic integration.

    All of this is very clear and out in the open and, to repeat, is just how economies work within modern countries. Well, well functioning ones, at least.
    Very clearly you don't support those EU aims, but we don't have to get into that and besides, you got your way. But you do need to let go of this stance that it is wrong because you are cheapening the good work that indirect discrimination legislation does by denying the ethical case for innocent practices that do indirectly discriminate but are legally and ethically justified if we are to have any economic freedom whatsoever. Rules (be they legal or ethical) should never be held so absolutely that they lead us into absurdity. Hiring a "diverse" non-Welsh speaker to speak to your Welsh-speaking customers would be an example of such absurdity, and as such an indirect discrimination argument needs to be thought about but not worshipped above all other gods.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,173
    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
    That or the Waffen SS.
    Surprised you didn't think of the Royal Lancers.

    I did read a memoir by a RTR tankie who recalled the time they moved to a former barracks in Germany and couldn't understand the reaction of the locals till it was explained to them that the barracks' previous owners had been the SS.
  • Options

    The school appears to be ignoring statutory guidance (which is basically as close to law as it is possible to get without being law). The guidance says that "Parents should be able to purchase generic items of uniform from a range of retailers giving them choice and value for money." Holderness insist that skirts must be purchased from their official supplier despite the fact it is clearly a generic item. Interestingly, there is no such requirement for trousers. So they are in breach of statutory guidance and possibly also of the Equality Act.

    It's run by a wanky trust, so I expect a level of stupidity by default. And this is some stupid.

    If they're discriminating against girls, that's idiotic. They're also discriminating against poorer families who can't afford to shop at Kickback Clothing. I imagine this is a local comp which has been effectively privatised, so parents may not have much of a choice in being able to send their kids to a school not run by stards.
  • Options

    MattW said:

    Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.

    We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.

    Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.

    A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".

    Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.

    Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.

    Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.

    What a shitshow this Govt has become.

    wait till you see the next one
    The point is that a large proportion of the electorate are doing just that.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,039
    MattW said:

    Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.

    We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.

    Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.

    A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".

    Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.

    Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.

    Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.

    What a shitshow this Govt has become.

    Conservatives: the party for the corrupt, the paranoid and the easily fooled.

    I’m nobody’s idea of a Tory, but there is still something quite sad about the decline of a once proud and serious party that has turned into a sclerotic UKIP-lite, foregoing any sense of rational policy-making to nose down whatever idiotic blind alley of populism that could grub them an extra few votes.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,173
    edited September 2023

    The school appears to be ignoring statutory guidance (which is basically as close to law as it is possible to get without being law). The guidance says that "Parents should be able to purchase generic items of uniform from a range of retailers giving them choice and value for money." Holderness insist that skirts must be purchased from their official supplier despite the fact it is clearly a generic item. Interestingly, there is no such requirement for trousers. So they are in breach of statutory guidance and possibly also of the Equality Act.

    It's run by a wanky trust, so I expect a level of stupidity by default. And this is some stupid.

    If they're discriminating against girls, that's idiotic. They're also discriminating against poorer families who can't afford to shop at Kickback Clothing. I imagine this is a local comp which has been effectively privatised, so parents may not have much of a choice in being able to send their kids to a school not run by stards.
    Came across, the other day, when looking for comething else, a village school in Somerset that had insisted that children wear proper shoes not black trainers.

    Unsurprisingly, the DM readers fetishise the uniform.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12496487/Uniform-anger-School-pupils-roam-streets-sent-home-wearing-wrong-clothes-pupils-detention-having-renegade-shoes-forced-wear-blazers-heat.html
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,837

    Joe Biden is becoming dangerous. Remove him now before it’s too late
    America and the free world can’t handle much more of this. Democrats must act to replace the president

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/13/biden-is-becoming-dangerous-remove-him-before-its-too-late/

    For those of us who mercifully cannot read Telegraph articles, what is the crux of this?
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
    That or the Waffen SS.
    Please, in Scotland it is the Waffen Yes Yes or Yestapo.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,968
    edited September 2023

    Joe Biden is becoming dangerous. Remove him now before it’s too late
    America and the free world can’t handle much more of this. Democrats must act to replace the president

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/13/biden-is-becoming-dangerous-remove-him-before-its-too-late/

    This seems strange from Heath. AFAIK Biden has left the DoJ to appoint an arms length prosecutor, and just kept well out.

    He probably broke some laws, but the Biden administration looks to be abusing its power by weaponising the Justice Department to destroy him.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,919
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
    That or the Waffen SS.
    Surprised you didn't think of the Royal Lancers.

    I did read a memoir by a RTR tankie who recalled the time they moved to a former barracks in Germany and couldn't understand the reaction of the locals till it was explained to them that the barracks' previous owners had been the SS.
    Bit like the Lancers and the Deaths Head.

    In both cases the SS were JohnnyComeLately.

    Mind you, my grandfather (WWI veteran) caused a moment in the pub, when talking to some soldiers on leave (WWII). They’d been explaining that they shot out of hand any Germans in all black. As being SS. He pointed out that they were almost certainly tank crew.
  • Options

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,039
    edited September 2023
    Farooq said:

    Joe Biden is becoming dangerous. Remove him now before it’s too late
    America and the free world can’t handle much more of this. Democrats must act to replace the president

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/13/biden-is-becoming-dangerous-remove-him-before-its-too-late/

    For those of us who mercifully cannot read Telegraph articles, what is the crux of this?
    Presumably:

    a) some Hunter conspiracy stuff
    b) ‘sleepy Joe’
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,837

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
    That or the Waffen SS.
    Please, in Scotland it is the Waffen Yes Yes or Yestapo.
    KGB
  • Options
    Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.

    In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.

    The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.

    In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”

    He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.

    His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.

    “The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”

    Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.

    “They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-immigration-plan-channel-crossings-uk-2023-rv3qmqtmp
  • Options
    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
    That or the Waffen SS.
    Please, in Scotland it is the Waffen Yes Yes or Yestapo.
    KGB
    Your Anglocentrism is insulting the Russians.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,837

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
    That or the Waffen SS.
    Please, in Scotland it is the Waffen Yes Yes or Yestapo.
    KGB
    Your Anglocentrism is insulting the Russians.
    I'm ok with that
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,919

    Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.

    In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.

    The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.

    In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”

    He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.

    His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.

    “The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”

    Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.

    “They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-immigration-plan-channel-crossings-uk-2023-rv3qmqtmp

    Excellent - so following America, we expand asset seizure because convicting people of crimes involves that tricky evidence stuff.

    For once we should get ahead of the curve. In America, cops have been found to be seizing stuff they want, and buying it for personal use for pennies at “auctions”.

    Why not open this up to the general public - a website where you can specify in advance what you want seized? Steal to order…

    Oh, and for a fun topic crossover - in America, a ridiculous percentage of seizures are moderate amounts of cash. From black men.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,968
    Farooq said:

    Joe Biden is becoming dangerous. Remove him now before it’s too late
    America and the free world can’t handle much more of this. Democrats must act to replace the president

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/13/biden-is-becoming-dangerous-remove-him-before-its-too-late/

    For those of us who mercifully cannot read Telegraph articles, what is the crux of this?
    You can read it here :smile: :
    https://archive.ph/GIF73

    Allistair Heath "acknowledging" that Trump has "broken some laws", yet trying to lay responsibility for what is happening mainly on Biden's shoulders - for example by accusing him of being near senile and setting the DoJ on Trump.

    Heath underplaying Trump's deliberate attempts to undermine the result of the last Election by creating a slate of false electoral reporters to report altered electoral data, having obtained the data by theft, then leaving Republican aligned bodies to "sort out the situation" and select Trump's fake version - thus falsely winning him the Election.
  • Options

    Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.

    In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.

    The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.

    In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”

    He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.

    His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.

    “The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”

    Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.

    “They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-immigration-plan-channel-crossings-uk-2023-rv3qmqtmp

    Excellent - so following America, we expand asset seizure because convicting people of crimes involves that tricky evidence stuff.

    For once we should get ahead of the curve. In America, cops have been found to be seizing stuff they want, and buying it for personal use for pennies at “auctions”.

    Why not open this up to the general public - a website where you can specify in advance what you want seized? Steal to order…

    Oh, and for a fun topic crossover - in America, a ridiculous percentage of seizures are moderate amounts of cash. From black men.
    Wait until it leads to an increase of people being debanked.
  • Options

    Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.

    In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.

    The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.

    In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”

    He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.

    His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.

    “The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”

    Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.

    “They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-immigration-plan-channel-crossings-uk-2023-rv3qmqtmp

    One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter/provider of routes to freedom.

    The use of ‘terrorist’ as a catch all term for the bogeyman de jour is pretty wanky at the best of times.
  • Options

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022

    I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come

    I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
  • Options
    Quite a bit of George Osborne on the radio, is up to something?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594
    edited September 2023
    Barnesian said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
    Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.

    Asda:



    Rawcliffe:



    Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
  • Options
    Good morning

    On topic just where has common sense gone not just on the uniforms but ULEZ and blanket 20 mph in Wales

    Sensible implementation of these changes would avoid unnecessary controversy
  • Options

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022

    I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come

    I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
    Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.

    Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.

    There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
  • Options
    So how much does the official skirt cost compared to the supermarket one ?

    And are the teachers obliged to buy from the official supplier ?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594

    Barnesian said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
    Yes.

    Schools have a uniform selection of colours they can select between that are stocked by supermarkets (and required by statutory guidance mentioned above). Hence why all the kids going to primary schools in blue or red t shirts have the same shade of blue or red.

    If the school has chosen an improper colour that's the schools fault, not the parents. Like a school insisting their uniform t shirt isn't red, it's magenta.
    I know you are a master at arguing that black is white. Try now to argue that black is grey.
  • Options

    Quite a bit of George Osborne on the radio, is up to something?

    Other than setting up a new podcast with Ed Balls, no.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    My school uniform was simply "all black": an attempt by the council to reduce class size in the dark north of Scotland.

    I knew Scots loved to support anyone opposing the English, but having the Kiwi rugby kit as your school uniform seems to take it a bit far.
    I thought it was about getting the children into the Royal Tank Regiment?
    That or the Waffen SS.
    Surprised you didn't think of the Royal Lancers.

    I did read a memoir by a RTR tankie who recalled the time they moved to a former barracks in Germany and couldn't understand the reaction of the locals till it was explained to them that the barracks' previous owners had been the SS.
    17th/21st in old money. Yes good point - those too.
  • Options

    Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.

    In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.

    The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.

    In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”

    He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.

    His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.

    “The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”

    Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.

    “They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-immigration-plan-channel-crossings-uk-2023-rv3qmqtmp

    One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter/provider of routes to freedom.

    The use of ‘terrorist’ as a catch all term for the bogeyman de jour is pretty wanky at the best of times.
    Baba Yaga?
  • Options

    Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.

    In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.

    The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.

    In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”

    He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.

    His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.

    “The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”

    Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.

    “They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-immigration-plan-channel-crossings-uk-2023-rv3qmqtmp

    One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter/provider of routes to freedom.

    The use of ‘terrorist’ as a catch all term for the bogeyman de jour is pretty wanky at the best of times.
    There was a report yesterday that the migrants are forming their own groups and acquiring the boats avoiding any use of people smugglers and the huge costs

    It is without doubt that many of them are resourceful and it does make sense to DIY their crossings, though it is as dangerous as ever
  • Options

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022

    I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come

    I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
    Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.

    Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.

    There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
    I understand that but I just do not see a cashless society anytime soon
  • Options

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    Yesterday I saw some children playing on those rides where you pretend to be driving a car or flying a helicopter or whatever. A one Euro coin in the slot - cash only.

    BTW I am in the south of Spain this week. Forecast to reach 31degC today. Back to the British autumn on Sunday, alas.
  • Options
    From the ONS:

    The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/june2023

    And an increase of 266,000 since 2019 and 402,000 since 2010.

    Have any Conservative MPs noticed this ?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,200

    Good morning

    On topic just where has common sense gone not just on the uniforms but ULEZ and blanket 20 mph in Wales

    Sensible implementation of these changes would avoid unnecessary controversy

    Because people who've stopped using it want to boss everyone else around.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    The school appears to be ignoring statutory guidance (which is basically as close to law as it is possible to get without being law). The guidance says that "Parents should be able to purchase generic items of uniform from a range of retailers giving them choice and value for money." Holderness insist that skirts must be purchased from their official supplier despite the fact it is clearly a generic item. Interestingly, there is no such requirement for trousers. So they are in breach of statutory guidance and possibly also of the Equality Act.

    It's run by a wanky trust, so I expect a level of stupidity by default. And this is some stupid.

    If they're discriminating against girls, that's idiotic. They're also discriminating against poorer families who can't afford to shop at Kickback Clothing. I imagine this is a local comp which has been effectively privatised, so parents may not have much of a choice in being able to send their kids to a school not run by stards.
    Came across, the other day, when looking for comething else, a village school in Somerset that had insisted that children wear proper shoes not black trainers.

    Unsurprisingly, the DM readers fetishise the uniform.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12496487/Uniform-anger-School-pupils-roam-streets-sent-home-wearing-wrong-clothes-pupils-detention-having-renegade-shoes-forced-wear-blazers-heat.html
    Wearing proper shoes is bog standard uniform AFAIK. Certainly is in my kids school, and we get our kids school shoes from ASDA.

    That's completely different to insisting on a different shade so that people can't get it affordably.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,107
    The DT and Daily Hate obviously got the memo from no 10 to portray Starmers policy in the worst light with their headlines .

    Starmer does live in the real world where getting a returns deal with the EU would entail something in return whereas Sunak thinks the EU are going to take returns with zero reciprocity.
  • Options

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    And the good news is it has been nearly a week since the last payment processor outage.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
    Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.

    Asda:



    Rawcliffe:



    Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
    They will have a learnt valuable lessons about the power of branding, advertising and how to ignore petty bureaucracy, sounds like good schooling to me.
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    Good morning

    On topic just where has common sense gone not just on the uniforms but ULEZ and blanket 20 mph in Wales

    Sensible implementation of these changes would avoid unnecessary controversy

    Because people who've stopped using it want to boss everyone else around.
    Yet you want to boss everyone else around to take cash even when it isn't feasible.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,594
    edited September 2023

    Carnyx said:

    The school appears to be ignoring statutory guidance (which is basically as close to law as it is possible to get without being law). The guidance says that "Parents should be able to purchase generic items of uniform from a range of retailers giving them choice and value for money." Holderness insist that skirts must be purchased from their official supplier despite the fact it is clearly a generic item. Interestingly, there is no such requirement for trousers. So they are in breach of statutory guidance and possibly also of the Equality Act.

    It's run by a wanky trust, so I expect a level of stupidity by default. And this is some stupid.

    If they're discriminating against girls, that's idiotic. They're also discriminating against poorer families who can't afford to shop at Kickback Clothing. I imagine this is a local comp which has been effectively privatised, so parents may not have much of a choice in being able to send their kids to a school not run by stards.
    Came across, the other day, when looking for comething else, a village school in Somerset that had insisted that children wear proper shoes not black trainers.

    Unsurprisingly, the DM readers fetishise the uniform.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12496487/Uniform-anger-School-pupils-roam-streets-sent-home-wearing-wrong-clothes-pupils-detention-having-renegade-shoes-forced-wear-blazers-heat.html
    Wearing proper shoes is bog standard uniform AFAIK. Certainly is in my kids school, and we get our kids school shoes from ASDA.

    That's completely different to insisting on a different shade so that people can't get it affordably.
    Where is @TSE when we need him to make a New Romantic pun on this.

    Suffice to say that black is not a shade of grey.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,090

    Good morning

    On topic just where has common sense gone not just on the uniforms but ULEZ and blanket 20 mph in Wales

    Sensible implementation of these changes would avoid unnecessary controversy

    The black, low-visibility skirts make 20mph limits even more necessary.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,722

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022

    I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come

    I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
    Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.

    Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.

    There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
    I surprisingly used cash the other day for the first time in ages. It was fortunate I had it. I only had it because I got a new debit card to use in America and needed to use it in an ATM first. The pub's system went down. It was panic. They were having to take customers details who didn't have cash. Fortunately I sailed through the Mayhew. Very lucky as I never use cash otherwise.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can't find a link to this story.

    Edit: ah I've found it.

    Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.

    They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
    Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
    For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.

    Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
    One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
    Yes.

    Schools have a uniform selection of colours they can select between that are stocked by supermarkets (and required by statutory guidance mentioned above). Hence why all the kids going to primary schools in blue or red t shirts have the same shade of blue or red.

    If the school has chosen an improper colour that's the schools fault, not the parents. Like a school insisting their uniform t shirt isn't red, it's magenta.
    I know you are a master at arguing that black is white. Try now to argue that black is grey.
    It's all shades, yes.

    If they've chosen an inappropriate colour that can't be purchased at supermarkets then that's the schools fault. Just as if they chose neon green as the colour. There's a range of acceptable colours for school uniforms that are able to be chosen, choosing a different shade of grey, or a different shade of red, or a colour not otherwise a available, is not acceptable.
  • Options

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022

    I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come

    I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
    Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.

    Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.

    There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
    I understand that but I just do not see a cashless society anytime soon
    I work in banking, I know the authors of that report, I've seen the trends, I've seen the future.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,245
    edited September 2023

    ydoethur said:

    Yesterday somebody was asking about sexual harassment in schools.

    The answer is it does go on, very frequently. However, because it is impossible to work in education without a reference from your previous school, the pressure to accept a settlement including that reference and sign an NDA is immense.

    I’m not even sure if that is legal, certainly not for criminal matters, but it has happened to colleagues of mine in every single school I have worked in. Indeed, in one school I kicked up such a fuss over the head using NDAs to cover up his predatory behaviour he threatened me with violence.

    Abuse covered up with NDAs is a familiar structure, to those who’ve come across organisations where criminal behaviour is…. rampant.

    The use of the reference system as part of this bullying behaviour is also completely typical.
    Teaching unions can be some help there.

    Some years back, my wife had a serious falling out with a head (who was essentially a sociopath), but was able to find a new job without too much hassle.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    The school appears to be ignoring statutory guidance (which is basically as close to law as it is possible to get without being law). The guidance says that "Parents should be able to purchase generic items of uniform from a range of retailers giving them choice and value for money." Holderness insist that skirts must be purchased from their official supplier despite the fact it is clearly a generic item. Interestingly, there is no such requirement for trousers. So they are in breach of statutory guidance and possibly also of the Equality Act.

    It's run by a wanky trust, so I expect a level of stupidity by default. And this is some stupid.

    If they're discriminating against girls, that's idiotic. They're also discriminating against poorer families who can't afford to shop at Kickback Clothing. I imagine this is a local comp which has been effectively privatised, so parents may not have much of a choice in being able to send their kids to a school not run by stards.
    Came across, the other day, when looking for comething else, a village school in Somerset that had insisted that children wear proper shoes not black trainers.

    Unsurprisingly, the DM readers fetishise the uniform.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12496487/Uniform-anger-School-pupils-roam-streets-sent-home-wearing-wrong-clothes-pupils-detention-having-renegade-shoes-forced-wear-blazers-heat.html
    Wearing proper shoes is bog standard uniform AFAIK. Certainly is in my kids school, and we get our kids school shoes from ASDA.

    That's completely different to insisting on a different shade so that people can't get it affordably.
    Where is @TSE when we need him to make a New Romantic pun on this.

    Suffice to say that black is not a shade of grey.
    I'm biting my lip on this one.

    I don't think it is appropriate to make a pun/gag about schoolgirl uniforms and Fifty Shades of Grey.

    Oh shit, I just did.
This discussion has been closed.