I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
We don’t get oil from Russia and we get very, very little from Saudi Arabia. Most of the foreign oil we get is from Norway.
Caroline Lucas (pbuh) said this morning that getting on for 90% of the crude from Rosebank was unsuitable for UK refineries therefore would be sold on the opoen market then sold back to us in its finoshed state. The bloke they had on pimping for Big Oil was noticeably mealy mouthed about refuting this.
So much for self reliance.
It shows how we all listen and hear different things. The guy from the company who has the rights was quite clear and not mealy mouthed that Caroline Lucas, pimping for the Green Party, was wrong and that the majority was suitable to be used in the UK and he didn’t know where she had fished up that number.
One of them is wrong/lying and I am too lazy to check who but both can’t be right and I guess we hear what we want to hear.
Happy to read though if someone has definitive answers on who was wrong/lying though.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Fox has demeaned himself utterly though. Hitherto he'd attempted to portray himself as some kind of free-speech crusader: controversial perhaps but ultimately noble and kind. Now he just looks like the worst sort of smart-arse laddish twat. (And his use of the words 'cucked' and 'incel' was telling: demonstrates the kind of rabbit holes he frequents.)
He seems to have gone from self publicising strength-to-strength since his appearance on QT. Makes you wonder if those going on about the disinfectant of sunlight re. Nick Griffin & QT are talking crap.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
You're threshold for being offended (except when Britian Onion Jack Royal Family is insulted) is notably high.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
"Who'd shag that" comes preety close IMHO. Lawrence Fox (Harrow) - another outstanding testament to the rounded education conferred by our great Public Schools.
"Madam, you are ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober."
Since we are doing independent schools, I looked up my own school and it comes out like this. Ignoring support for other schools etc. I think these numbers are not far off the high end of reasonable expectations from a school's own resources.
This is Nottingham High School - Heads' Conference. Good academically.
Full fees: 18k per annum, which is a little below average for the sector. Annual income: £20m. Pupils: ~1000 in toto in Junior and Senior schools. I'm ignoring infants. Endowment: £15-18m of investments, much in property. Bursaries: ~8% of fee income goes to means-tested bursaries, based also on academic performance. £1.4m in 2021/22. Just under 10% of pupils receive means tested bursaries, of which 3/4 are 75% or more of fees, and 90-95% are 50%+ of fees. On top of that there are smaller programmes for scholarships (academically based only) £100k, and concessions for children of staff £200k.
Numbers below:
Thanks. So, a pretty small amount of turnover goes to charity.
That said, some charity shops have a pretty small amount of turnover going to charity. For some charities, I understand the presence on the high street is seen as being more important, because that reminder that you exist feeds through to more legacy donations, and that’s where the big income is.
I thought the numbers from a fairly middle income school without a super-rich clientele would be interesting. In my day a typical pupil would be from a professional family or one running a local business. It's not a school with an international brand or very wealthy hinterland, such as a Westminster Schools or a Down House.
Yep - the table on the "who gets the benefit in % vs family income" is below. I think the heavy emphasis on 75% to 100% subsidy for relatively low household incomes is probably a correct distribution.
I don't see how the % of turnover could realistically be much defensible at a much higher level - the "charitable donations" comparisons fails because fees do not get tax relief. These are out of parents' taxed income.
One of Starmer's risks is that he will just knock out the support for the ~50-80k of pupils in the independent sector who get support due to the last round of changes. It's a high cost to those children for ideological pandering.
Thing is, I don't really care how tax efficient your system is, if your system is working towards a caste system.
Could equally be argued to be a liberal system. State provides education but doesn't mandate that everyone uses it. I support the private option but am amenable to tax being levied on fees, but 20% would do a lot of damage all round I think.
It's just a machine for generation inequality. I mean, obviously it is. That's why people are willing to pay so much money for it. A liberal system would see parental choice and it being free at the point of use. Oversubscriptions get decided by lottery not by how fat your wallet is. Oversubscribed schools get big government grants to expand.
We have that, which is why my kids go to their good state school I can drive them to rather than the closest state school that has not got such a good reputation.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to get a place in a good school though and for those who are of a middle income (not exceptionally well off, not exceptionally poor) should they be penalised for prioritising their kids education as a Plan B to a state system that has let them down?
Fix the state system is a nice idea, but since the problem begins at home and its bad parenting more than bad funding that leads to rough schools (indeed rough state schools often have a higher funding per pupil than good state schools) then fixing that is not easy.
Plan A should be to get a good free education, why not? But if that fails, should parents be banned from paying for a Plan B?
The fact that not everyone is fortunate enough to go to a good school is not an argument for deciding the allocation on this or that basis. It's an argument for sorting out the bad schools. If there are bad schools, SOMEONE needs to be penalised. If the answer to the "who" question is "well, the poor, obviously" then it's class warfare. If the answer is "it might be you or it might not be" that's fairer and perhaps will have the added benefit of spurring on political pressure to sort any problems out.
The people who send their kids to private school have, on average, a disproportionate amount of political power. They're the ones who can fix this. They just need a little self-interested incentive.
But allocation is not decided on this or that basis. 93% of pupils, like my own daughters, go to state schools.
What's the breakdown of the other 7%? I imagine maybe 5% are wealthy enough to simply want private education and will pay for it either way, while maybe 2% are situational dependent and people who have chosen to privately educate their kids because of circumstances.
Should that approximately 1/50 pupils turning to a Plan B have the Plan B denied to them?
If we're talking about specialist schools that cater for special needs then I support their existence and selection based on qualifying special needs. Clearly some children need a tailored school experience to mitigate their own personal disadvantages.
I don't see why parents should be made to pay for that though.
In some ways this reminds me of accessibility features. Some of us don't need specialist infrastructure, others do. We wouldn't expect a surcharge for wheelchair users in a supermarket even though there are architectural features that have been included specifically to cater for them. We absorb the extra cost as a community because that's what equality of opportunity is about.
93% of parents don't pay.
That some do is their choice and each will have different reasons.
If a child is being bullied that should be stopped but if a middle income parent decides to take their kid out of a system that's let them down, rather than taking their kid on a holiday in August, should they be punished or banned from doing that?
Paying VAT =/= being punished.
Paying VAT for what is objectively a charity and meets all objective definitions of a charity sure is.
If the school is a business not a charity and paying dividends to shareholders not using it's net proceeds for charitable purposes like any other charity does then it should have VAT.
See, I would modify what counts as a charity to specifically exclude private schools.
How? Objectively, without referring to schooling, simply based on objective criteria of what a charity does in good works, and how a charity fundraises, then how do you objectively modify that?
If a school uses a higher percentage of it's funds for objective good works than say Oxfam does, would it remain a charity or be excluded in your world?
If you're providing primary or secondary education, you can't qualify for charitable status. It's not difficult to decide that, the only question is whether or not it's the right thing to do.
If I made use of an animal rescue charity, I'd be expected to pay a fee.
Not necessarily. Depends on the person's circumstances. Especially for animal treatment charities.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
To pick a different part of the charity sector - heritage railways. Most have charitable status, on the basis that preservation of and education about heritage assets is a public good.
How do most visitors interact with one? Pay on the gate, get a heritage train ride. Generally without paying VAT either (rail travel is VAT exempt!). Most of the benefits acrue to those who pay to travel but we accept that there is enough public good for their activities to be charitable - and indeed most of them wouldn't last five minutes as normal commercial outfits.
Yep sounds good. Heritage trains are important and fun and very few of them (if any) hardcode inequality and cascade it down through the generations.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
"Who'd shag that" comes preety close IMHO. Lawrence Fox (Harrow) - another outstanding testament to the rounded education conferred by our great Public Schools.
"Madam, you are ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober."
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
We don’t get oil from Russia and we get very, very little from Saudi Arabia. Most of the foreign oil we get is from Norway.
Caroline Lucas (pbuh) said this morning that getting on for 90% of the crude from Rosebank was unsuitable for UK refineries therefore would be sold on the opoen market then sold back to us in its finoshed state. The bloke they had on pimping for Big Oil was noticeably mealy mouthed about refuting this.
So much for self reliance.
It shows how we all listen and hear different things. The guy from the company who has the rights was quite clear and not mealy mouthed that Caroline Lucas, pimping for the Green Party, was wrong and that the majority was suitable to be used in the UK and he didn’t know where she had fished up that number.
One of them is wrong/lying and I am too lazy to check who but both can’t be right and I guess we hear what we want to hear.
Happy to read though if someone has definitive answers on who was wrong/lying though.
I would bet on the oil company guy - they have a historical reputation for probity and are immune to the temptation of representing the interests of their employer.
My dream result is that Con + Reform is larger than Lab + Green + LD, but Khan still wins on FPTP, while would in all probability have lost to Hall on the previous system via Reform transfers.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
We don’t get oil from Russia and we get very, very little from Saudi Arabia. Most of the foreign oil we get is from Norway.
Caroline Lucas (pbuh) said this morning that getting on for 90% of the crude from Rosebank was unsuitable for UK refineries therefore would be sold on the opoen market then sold back to us in its finoshed state. The bloke they had on pimping for Big Oil was noticeably mealy mouthed about refuting this.
So much for self reliance.
It shows how we all listen and hear different things. The guy from the company who has the rights was quite clear and not mealy mouthed that Caroline Lucas, pimping for the Green Party, was wrong and that the majority was suitable to be used in the UK and he didn’t know where she had fished up that number.
One of them is wrong/lying and I am too lazy to check who but both can’t be right and I guess we hear what we want to hear.
Happy to read though if someone has definitive answers on who was wrong/lying though.
In terms of the global issue neither view is important at all. The only real questions is: In due course will the amount of oil/gas this field produces be used in the same way as all other oil.
If it is being created in order that X million extra barrels are being burned which would otherwise not, it can't be justified. If it is part of the world's normal supply then we are in the same position as Norway, Saudi, Russia, USA and so on. It is fanatical quasi religion to say it must be produced somewhere else. There is only the one planet.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
To pick a different part of the charity sector - heritage railways. Most have charitable status, on the basis that preservation of and education about heritage assets is a public good.
How do most visitors interact with one? Pay on the gate, get a heritage train ride. Generally without paying VAT either (rail travel is VAT exempt!). Most of the benefits acrue to those who pay to travel but we accept that there is enough public good for their activities to be charitable - and indeed most of them wouldn't last five minutes as normal commercial outfits.
That is an absolutely fantastic counter example.
Yes the principles are exactly the same!
The purpose there is saving the trains/track. And trains/track are saved irrespective of their ability to pay
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Anyone betting that Trump and his two sons, being found by a court to have been engaged in a decade of fraud, will get even a tenth of the press coverage of Hunter Biden, unlawfully owning a gun for 11 days, 5 years ago?
Didn't Trump illegally buy a gun the other day? What's going on with that?
I can think of few more people in public life less suitable as a gun-owner.
Otoh he looked as if he hardly knew one end from the other. It would be tragic if he had an accident..
A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s armor piercing or just your standard bullet — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it? And then I said, supposing you brought the bullets inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the gunshot wounds, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by pointing inside or almost a shooting effect. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.
The amusing thing is his media guys telling the world he'd been buying a gun. To bolster the tough guy image.
Then seeing everyone point out he'd just committed a federal felony, and immediately denying he'd done any such thing. "Just having a look..."
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ...
The expectation it must be posh and expensive is commercially driven and very damaging. It is a branch of that even larger industry telling girls they are not good looking unless they spend loads of money. The financial damage is huge. The psychological damage is much worse.
I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
We don’t get oil from Russia and we get very, very little from Saudi Arabia. Most of the foreign oil we get is from Norway.
Caroline Lucas (pbuh) said this morning that getting on for 90% of the crude from Rosebank was unsuitable for UK refineries therefore would be sold on the opoen market then sold back to us in its finoshed state. The bloke they had on pimping for Big Oil was noticeably mealy mouthed about refuting this.
So much for self reliance.
It shows how we all listen and hear different things. The guy from the company who has the rights was quite clear and not mealy mouthed that Caroline Lucas, pimping for the Green Party, was wrong and that the majority was suitable to be used in the UK and he didn’t know where she had fished up that number.
One of them is wrong/lying and I am too lazy to check who but both can’t be right and I guess we hear what we want to hear.
Happy to read though if someone has definitive answers on who was wrong/lying though.
From memory he said that it would some time before the field started producing but there was no reason that the oil woud not be used by the UK. That was not saying it would be refined here.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ...
The expectation it must be posh and expensive is commercially driven and very damaging. It is a branch of that even larger industry telling girls they are not good looking unless they spend loads of money. The financial damage is huge. The psychological damage is much worse.
Even the men too, to admittedly a much lesser extent.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
Register office for Mrs Soup and me, followed by a slap-up lunch with our two witnesses. Lasted 40 years (and counting).
The privately educated and the parents of children in private education are massively over-represented on PB.
No real point engaging in the debate here as the balance of opinion is massively distorted from the population as a whole.
That's true, but the debate does bring forth some entertaining defences of private schools. I've heard most of them before (many times) but occasionally you get a new one. Eg today's 'Eton is like a charity bookshop'. That's a cracker. I wouldn't have wanted to have just gone on in life never having heard that.
Well, it brings out different ideas about what the purpose of education is. If the main purpose is to promote equality, then yes, independent schools (and private universities) stand very much in the way of that purpose.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
Ours was ~£5k in 2015 including the honeymoon. Some people go nuts.
I went to one that I know cost £50k (for the day!). It was fine, but I prefered ours (may have bias there!)
Ours, relative to most cost peanuts - hired the church hall, meal was brought in, teenagers moved things round and then a barn dance in the evening.
Probably £4,000 or so all in and people remember it for the invite statement of "wear sensible shoes" which was the only clue to the evening's entertainment.
That and the guest of the previous wedding at the local historic countryside church being blocked in by our coach that was transporting people from a to b.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
The terms of their licence will be the same as anyone else and include a requirement to comply with the Broadcasting Code. It seems to me this is a fairly clear breach of Rule 2 on offence and Rule 3 on abuse/derogatory treatment.
Interviewees do sometimes get out of control on live programmes (I think Fox was a guest of Wootton on this one although he has his own separate show) but the only get out is immediate apology and robust challenge which Wootton didn't provide. GB News and Wootton have been rowing back hard today, but that's damage limitation at this stage. It's a pretty bad compliance failure. I think Wootton and Fox appear to have joked in text messages about "freaking out in the gallery" but Ofcom are entitled to ask why that didn't translate to prompt action by the presenter.
It surprises me a bit that Fox has been suspended but not Wootton - he was the presenter and dropped a bollock pretty badly in a way that could well cost his employer.
I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
We don’t get oil from Russia and we get very, very little from Saudi Arabia. Most of the foreign oil we get is from Norway.
Caroline Lucas (pbuh) said this morning that getting on for 90% of the crude from Rosebank was unsuitable for UK refineries therefore would be sold on the opoen market then sold back to us in its finoshed state. The bloke they had on pimping for Big Oil was noticeably mealy mouthed about refuting this.
So much for self reliance.
Depends where it goes. A refinery in France processing U.K. oil (say) is vastly preferable to buying oil products from nearly every other oil producing country.
The last 10 polls on UK Polling Wiki have Lab leads of 15. 17. 20.18.15.19.17.16.15.16 = Ave 16.8
The previous 10 polls on same site have Lab leads of 21.24.20.20.20.22.20.21.22.20 = Ave 21.0
Is it a trend?
Too early to say but glimmer of hope for the Tories maybe?
IMHO there is no further upside for Labour, and ditto downside for the Tories. the polls will tighten a lot, with one having a gap of under 10 points by Christmas. NOM is the value bet at the moment. The Tories intend to run the most cynical populist campaign since the last one.
There are long term trends, temporary blips and short term movements. It is not straightforward.
The long term trend since the 2019 GE is downwards for the Tories and upwards for Labour. That is the underlying trend. The gap may be over stated by the Tory DK issue which has been much discussed on here. But the trend is clear. No evidence of swingback.
There have been two significant blips. The Covid blip which favoured Boris and the Tories, and the Truss blip, which didn't.
There are several short term movements mirroring short term political events but these do not persist
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
My wife made her own wedding dress. It had been worn once only when, 40 years later, it went to a charity.
Boils down to things need to change and the Treasury should be fired into the sun...
It's been pointed out before, but firing stuff into the sun requires a huge amount of energy. We couldn't afford it.
I know it's expensive but its the sort of project I believe most of the UK could get behind especially when they discover how much simply and better things would be if the Treasury could and had grasped the difference between investment and current spending..
I'm puzzled at why the Conservatives are doing so well in London Mayoral polls.
Because Khan is a cock, and London is finally waking up to it - as it were
Labour are doing fine in London in VI polls, it's Khan who is dragging the ticket
I know quite a few people who are disappointed that he's standing for a third term. All of them think he's fine, and most of them have voted for him twice. But there's definitely a feeling that 8 years in the job is enough.
Beyond that, there's been no noise yet about the voting system having been changed. Will people notice? The nature of the race will be very different if they do.
Not under FPTP, his candidacy helps Hall even more.
Hall doing as well as the Conservatives did in London in 2019 at 32% but Khan doing 13% worse than the 48% Labour got in London in 2019
I'd love Hall to win. It would be a hoot in all sorts of ways. That's why I won't be voting tactically for Khan but will vote Lib Dem for Blackie, even if it let's Hall win. London Mayor doesn't have much power in practice. It's a figurehead. And Hall as the Tory figurehead in London would just make me laugh. It would extend the joke.
Since we are doing independent schools, I looked up my own school and it comes out like this. Ignoring support for other schools etc. I think these numbers are not far off the high end of reasonable expectations from a school's own resources.
This is Nottingham High School - Heads' Conference. Good academically.
Full fees: 18k per annum, which is a little below average for the sector. Annual income: £20m. Pupils: ~1000 in toto in Junior and Senior schools. I'm ignoring infants. Endowment: £15-18m of investments, much in property. Bursaries: ~8% of fee income goes to means-tested bursaries, based also on academic performance. £1.4m in 2021/22. Just under 10% of pupils receive means tested bursaries, of which 3/4 are 75% or more of fees, and 90-95% are 50%+ of fees. On top of that there are smaller programmes for scholarships (academically based only) £100k, and concessions for children of staff £200k.
Numbers below:
Thanks. So, a pretty small amount of turnover goes to charity.
That said, some charity shops have a pretty small amount of turnover going to charity. For some charities, I understand the presence on the high street is seen as being more important, because that reminder that you exist feeds through to more legacy donations, and that’s where the big income is.
I thought the numbers from a fairly middle income school without a super-rich clientele would be interesting. In my day a typical pupil would be from a professional family or one running a local business. It's not a school with an international brand or very wealthy hinterland, such as a Westminster Schools or a Down House.
Yep - the table on the "who gets the benefit in % vs family income" is below. I think the heavy emphasis on 75% to 100% subsidy for relatively low household incomes is probably a correct distribution.
I don't see how the % of turnover could realistically be much defensible at a much higher level - the "charitable donations" comparisons fails because fees do not get tax relief. These are out of parents' taxed income.
One of Starmer's risks is that he will just knock out the support for the ~50-80k of pupils in the independent sector who get support due to the last round of changes. It's a high cost to those children for ideological pandering.
Yes, interesting. Thanks.
Lots of big companies will have an associated charitable trust that does good work, but they don’t claim that the company is a charity. The Carlsberg Foundation, a charity, controls 74% of Carlsberg: a large chunk of Carlsberg’s profits goes to educational charitable purposes (in Denmark). Bupa has no shareholders: all profits are re-invested. I think that’s great. Go David Cameron’s Big Society! But I don’t think that means Carlsberg, the brewer, or Bupa are charities.
And I don’t think a private school, where most of their activity is on providing education for a fee, is remotely comparable to Oxfam running some charity shops.
I'm puzzled at why the Conservatives are doing so well in London Mayoral polls.
Because Khan is a cock, and London is finally waking up to it - as it were
Labour are doing fine in London in VI polls, it's Khan who is dragging the ticket
I know quite a few people who are disappointed that he's standing for a third term. All of them think he's fine, and most of them have voted for him twice. But there's definitely a feeling that 8 years in the job is enough.
Beyond that, there's been no noise yet about the voting system having been changed. Will people notice? The nature of the race will be very different if they do.
Also, even if he wins, Khan is gonna end up absolutely LOATHED. Who doesn't, after three terms? Which won't do much for any further political career
One can only presume he has, in fact, given up on any idea of career progression. Mayor is it, for him
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
My wife made her own wedding dress. It had been worn once only when, 40 years later, it went to a charity.
One likes to think that it made at least one other young lady very happy (and very relieved).
Since we are doing independent schools, I looked up my own school and it comes out like this. Ignoring support for other schools etc. I think these numbers are not far off the high end of reasonable expectations from a school's own resources.
This is Nottingham High School - Heads' Conference. Good academically.
Full fees: 18k per annum, which is a little below average for the sector. Annual income: £20m. Pupils: ~1000 in toto in Junior and Senior schools. I'm ignoring infants. Endowment: £15-18m of investments, much in property. Bursaries: ~8% of fee income goes to means-tested bursaries, based also on academic performance. £1.4m in 2021/22. Just under 10% of pupils receive means tested bursaries, of which 3/4 are 75% or more of fees, and 90-95% are 50%+ of fees. On top of that there are smaller programmes for scholarships (academically based only) £100k, and concessions for children of staff £200k.
Numbers below:
Thanks. So, a pretty small amount of turnover goes to charity.
That said, some charity shops have a pretty small amount of turnover going to charity. For some charities, I understand the presence on the high street is seen as being more important, because that reminder that you exist feeds through to more legacy donations, and that’s where the big income is.
I thought the numbers from a fairly middle income school without a super-rich clientele would be interesting. In my day a typical pupil would be from a professional family or one running a local business. It's not a school with an international brand or very wealthy hinterland, such as a Westminster Schools or a Down House.
Yep - the table on the "who gets the benefit in % vs family income" is below. I think the heavy emphasis on 75% to 100% subsidy for relatively low household incomes is probably a correct distribution.
I don't see how the % of turnover could realistically be much defensible at a much higher level - the "charitable donations" comparisons fails because fees do not get tax relief. These are out of parents' taxed income.
One of Starmer's risks is that he will just knock out the support for the ~50-80k of pupils in the independent sector who get support due to the last round of changes. It's a high cost to those children for ideological pandering.
Yes, interesting. Thanks.
Lots of big companies will have an associated charitable trust that does good work, but they don’t claim that the company is a charity. The Carlsberg Foundation, a charity, controls 74% of Carlsberg: a large chunk of Carlsberg’s profits goes to educational charitable purposes (in Denmark). Bupa has no shareholders: all profits are re-invested. I think that’s great. Go David Cameron’s Big Society! But I don’t think that means Carlsberg, the brewer, or Bupa are charities.
And I don’t think a private school, where most of their activity is on providing education for a fee, is remotely comparable to Oxfam running some charity shops.
I think some Oxfam shops - run as a corporate business - have a pernicious effect on local businesses, which are driven out due to the tax shelters. This is especially the case with Oxfam's book departments (some small some large) in their chain of 600 shops, which includes 120 specialist bookshops.
All profits go to the parent charity. It's a common tax avoidance model - National Trust do the same thing aiui, for example.
Because local businesses cannot compete as they are in the taxed economy, it cannibalises tax revenue that would otherwise go to Local or National Government. That in turn impacts local jobs, because the local businesses cannot employ them and the charity shops run on one staff member plus all the rest volunteers.
By comparison Independent schools do not financially disadvantage or close down other local schools.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
Since we are doing independent schools, I looked up my own school and it comes out like this. Ignoring support for other schools etc. I think these numbers are not far off the high end of reasonable expectations from a school's own resources.
This is Nottingham High School - Heads' Conference. Good academically.
Full fees: 18k per annum, which is a little below average for the sector. Annual income: £20m. Pupils: ~1000 in toto in Junior and Senior schools. I'm ignoring infants. Endowment: £15-18m of investments, much in property. Bursaries: ~8% of fee income goes to means-tested bursaries, based also on academic performance. £1.4m in 2021/22. Just under 10% of pupils receive means tested bursaries, of which 3/4 are 75% or more of fees, and 90-95% are 50%+ of fees. On top of that there are smaller programmes for scholarships (academically based only) £100k, and concessions for children of staff £200k.
Numbers below:
Thanks. So, a pretty small amount of turnover goes to charity.
That said, some charity shops have a pretty small amount of turnover going to charity. For some charities, I understand the presence on the high street is seen as being more important, because that reminder that you exist feeds through to more legacy donations, and that’s where the big income is.
I thought the numbers from a fairly middle income school without a super-rich clientele would be interesting. In my day a typical pupil would be from a professional family or one running a local business. It's not a school with an international brand or very wealthy hinterland, such as a Westminster Schools or a Down House.
Yep - the table on the "who gets the benefit in % vs family income" is below. I think the heavy emphasis on 75% to 100% subsidy for relatively low household incomes is probably a correct distribution.
I don't see how the % of turnover could realistically be much defensible at a much higher level - the "charitable donations" comparisons fails because fees do not get tax relief. These are out of parents' taxed income.
One of Starmer's risks is that he will just knock out the support for the ~50-80k of pupils in the independent sector who get support due to the last round of changes. It's a high cost to those children for ideological pandering.
Though there are bursaries and bursaries.
Full fees, fair enough. But 30% bursaries to families with 60k?
That looks rather more like the double glazing model, where the point of the list price is to have a massive discount applied.
As for the wider schools VAT issue, FE colleges don't get it either, and never have;
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
But presumably Fox was hired as a serious political thinker and commentator. That sort of thing would be embarrassing if it came from a drunken scallywag who'd been propping up the bar all day. What did GB News hope to achieve by bringing this moron into their orbit?
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
But presumably Fox was hired as a serious political thinker and commentator. That sort of thing would be embarrassing if it came from a drunken scallywag who'd been propping up the bar all day. What did GB News hope to achieve by bringing this moron into their orbit?
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Surprisingly, the Fox story is not on the front page of GB News, aka the home of cancel culture.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
There's quite a difference between all three of those dudes. Irving was a Holocaust denier and Nazi-sympathiser, that's a bit more challenging than saying "I wouldn't shag her" on British TV news
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Boils down to things need to change and the Treasury should be fired into the sun...
It's been pointed out before, but firing stuff into the sun requires a huge amount of energy. We couldn't afford it.
I know it's expensive but its the sort of project I believe most of the UK could get behind especially when they discover how much simply and better things would be if the Treasury could and had grasped the difference between investment and current spending..
The joke during lockdown was that an annual subscription to the educational content of Netflix at £100/year compared well with your university fees (also remote) of £9,000.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
That’s a very fine line to tread though, and it’s difficult to be continually shocking without occasionally going completely off the deep end. One particular line might also be fine in one context, but not in another.
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
The privately educated and the parents of children in private education are massively over-represented on PB.
No real point engaging in the debate here as the balance of opinion is massively distorted from the population as a whole.
That's true, but the debate does bring forth some entertaining defences of private schools. I've heard most of them before (many times) but occasionally you get a new one. Eg today's 'Eton is like a charity bookshop'. That's a cracker. I wouldn't have wanted to have just gone on in life never having heard that.
Well, it brings out different ideas about what the purpose of education is. If the main purpose is to promote equality, then yes, independent schools (and private universities) stand very much in the way of that purpose.
Yes, at heart this is a values thing. I have no problem with people saying, 'ok yes, private schools foster and reinforce class inequality, but I nevertheless look favourably on them for these other reasons xyz'. However it's rare that this happens. I guess because people are reluctant to admit that reducing inequality isn't one of their priorities. Not sure why. It's only one of many things that can be important to you. No crime if it isn't. So why pretend? Let's be honest and then the argument is much improved.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
The privately educated and the parents of children in private education are massively over-represented on PB.
No real point engaging in the debate here as the balance of opinion is massively distorted from the population as a whole.
That's true, but the debate does bring forth some entertaining defences of private schools. I've heard most of them before (many times) but occasionally you get a new one. Eg today's 'Eton is like a charity bookshop'. That's a cracker. I wouldn't have wanted to have just gone on in life never having heard that.
Well, it brings out different ideas about what the purpose of education is. If the main purpose is to promote equality, then yes, independent schools (and private universities) stand very much in the way of that purpose.
Yes, at heart this is a values thing. I have no problem with people saying, 'ok yes, private schools foster and reinforce class inequality, but I nevertheless look favourably on them for these other reasons xyz'. However it's rare that this happens. I guess because people are reluctant to admit that reducing inequality isn't one of their priorities. Not sure why. It's only one of many things that can be important to you. No crime if it isn't. So why pretend? Let's be honest and then the argument is much improved.
It would have been better to abolish private schools in the 1960s/70s and keep grammar schools rather than vice versa.
And Susan Hall hasn't been given a main slot at the Tory Party conference. Sort it out Tories.
I think Sadiq Khan would also welcome that
Well, yes, there is a factor that she could damage the Tories by doing a shit speech, or conversely that the Tories could tarnish her by association, and it's better for her to do a Ruth Davidson and not appear prominently Tory-esque, but I'm not sure either of these things is likely. I don't think anyone is unclear on Hall's Toryism, politically she is quite aligned with new Sunakism, and I imagine she'd go down quite well at the conference. They should sort it.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
There's quite a difference between all three of those dudes. Irving was a Holocaust denier and Nazi-sympathiser, that's a bit more challenging than saying "I wouldn't shag her" on British TV news
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
Initially I thought Fox was a tragic figure: a minor celebrity who'd suffered some kind of mental breakdown / radicalization by visiting too many far-right websites. But, yes, you might be right and it's all just a cynical careerist ploy. I now suspect Fox is modelling himself on Milo Yiannopoulos, who first put the notion of the gender-pay-gap myth, which Fox mentioned during that broadcast, into the mainstream almost a decade ago.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
Register office for Mrs Soup and me, followed by a slap-up lunch with our two witnesses. Lasted 40 years (and counting).
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
That’s a very fine line to tread though, and it’s difficult to be continually shocking without occasionally going completely off the deep end. One particular line might also be fine in one context, but not in another.
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
Yes, it's a very perilous path for a pundit. As Hopkins discovered. And there is always pressure on you to up the ante and be MORE provocative to keep the clicks coming
Since we are doing independent schools, I looked up my own school and it comes out like this. Ignoring support for other schools etc. I think these numbers are not far off the high end of reasonable expectations from a school's own resources.
This is Nottingham High School - Heads' Conference. Good academically.
Full fees: 18k per annum, which is a little below average for the sector. Annual income: £20m. Pupils: ~1000 in toto in Junior and Senior schools. I'm ignoring infants. Endowment: £15-18m of investments, much in property. Bursaries: ~8% of fee income goes to means-tested bursaries, based also on academic performance. £1.4m in 2021/22. Just under 10% of pupils receive means tested bursaries, of which 3/4 are 75% or more of fees, and 90-95% are 50%+ of fees. On top of that there are smaller programmes for scholarships (academically based only) £100k, and concessions for children of staff £200k.
Numbers below:
Thanks. So, a pretty small amount of turnover goes to charity.
That said, some charity shops have a pretty small amount of turnover going to charity. For some charities, I understand the presence on the high street is seen as being more important, because that reminder that you exist feeds through to more legacy donations, and that’s where the big income is.
I thought the numbers from a fairly middle income school without a super-rich clientele would be interesting. In my day a typical pupil would be from a professional family or one running a local business. It's not a school with an international brand or very wealthy hinterland, such as a Westminster Schools or a Down House.
Yep - the table on the "who gets the benefit in % vs family income" is below. I think the heavy emphasis on 75% to 100% subsidy for relatively low household incomes is probably a correct distribution.
I don't see how the % of turnover could realistically be much defensible at a much higher level - the "charitable donations" comparisons fails because fees do not get tax relief. These are out of parents' taxed income.
One of Starmer's risks is that he will just knock out the support for the ~50-80k of pupils in the independent sector who get support due to the last round of changes. It's a high cost to those children for ideological pandering.
Though there are bursaries and bursaries.
Full fees, fair enough. But 30% bursaries to families with 60k?
That looks rather more like the double glazing model, where the point of the list price is to have a massive discount applied.
It's a fairly peripheral point on the stats, as approx 95+% of bursaries (based on both tables I posted) here are going to families with "assessable incomes" (their term) under 55k.
One other thing I note is that it is not clear whether that is pre-tax or post-tax income. I can't help with that - no data.
Compare to tax breaks on child care - we give tax fe childcare for couples where each partner earns less than £100k pre-tax - a household pre-tax income of up to £200k.
Perhaps we could stop tax subsidised childcare for household incomes over £55k, or give tax breaks on independent education where both partners have *individual* incomes under £100k !
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
There's quite a difference between all three of those dudes. Irving was a Holocaust denier and Nazi-sympathiser, that's a bit more challenging than saying "I wouldn't shag her" on British TV news
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
Initially I thought Fox was a tragic figure: a minor celebrity who'd suffered some kind of mental breakdown / radicalization by visiting too many far-right websites. But, yes, you might be right and it's all just a cynical careerist ploy. I now suspect Fox is modelling himself on Milo Yiannopoulos, who first put the notion of the gender-pay-gap myth, which Fox mentioned during that broadcast, into the mainstream almost a decade ago.
I am pretty sure that is EXACTLY what Fox is doing, and quite deliberately - I also thought of the Milo Y comparison (in the end he was brought down by past "indiscretions", not anything he said in his guise as a sort-of shock jock)
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
There's quite a difference between all three of those dudes. Irving was a Holocaust denier and Nazi-sympathiser, that's a bit more challenging than saying "I wouldn't shag her" on British TV news
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
If it's liberal-Woke not to say "who'd shag that" about another human being then please go away and warm me the largest plate of tofu you can find.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I have never (after day 1) seen GBN on telly, but occasional snippets on sound suggest that its overriding characteristics are stupefying dullness and absence of content.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Comments
One of them is wrong/lying and I am too lazy to check who but both can’t be right and I guess we hear what we want to hear.
Happy to read though if someone has definitive answers on who was wrong/lying though.
(Another Old Harrovian after a drink or three)
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1706633464219418675
Yep - the table on the "who gets the benefit in % vs family income" is below. I think the heavy emphasis on 75% to 100% subsidy for relatively low household incomes is probably a correct distribution.
I don't see how the % of turnover could realistically be much defensible at a much higher level - the "charitable donations" comparisons fails because fees do not get tax relief. These are out of parents' taxed income.
One of Starmer's risks is that he will just knock out the support for the ~50-80k of pupils in the independent sector who get support due to the last round of changes. It's a high cost to those children for ideological pandering.
O Lord please make Khan lose
"NEW Conservatives *3 points away* from winning the London mayoralty in 2024
Sadiq Khan (Lab): 35%
Susan Hall (Con): 32%
Howard Cox (Reform): 8%
Zoe Garbett (Green): 5%
Rob Blackie (Lib Dem): 5%
Other: 2%
@JLPartnersPolls
for
@TheSun
@MrHarryCole"
https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1706961040699748466?s=20
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
Not likely, but it would be hilarious.
the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/national/uk-today/23740153.much-average-wedding-cost-uk-couples/
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
If it is being created in order that X million extra barrels are being burned which would otherwise not, it can't be justified. If it is part of the world's normal supply then we are in the same position as Norway, Saudi, Russia, USA and so on. It is fanatical quasi religion to say it must be produced somewhere else. There is only the one planet.
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1706970095992332601
Boils down to things need to change and the Treasury should be fired into the sun...
I went to one that I know cost £50k (for the day!). It was fine, but I prefered ours (may have bias there!)
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Then seeing everyone point out he'd just committed a federal felony, and immediately denying he'd done any such thing.
"Just having a look..."
Labour are doing fine in London in VI polls, it's Khan who is dragging the ticket
We couldn't afford it.
Or go without avocado toast? 😂
Probably £4,000 or so all in and people remember it for the invite statement of "wear sensible shoes" which was the only clue to the evening's entertainment.
That and the guest of the previous wedding at the local historic countryside church being blocked in by our coach that was transporting people from a to b.
That's approx 80% of Fettes. Heriot's has a bike bus, completely different vibe.
Edit: Watson's has the bike bus. Heriot's has the bike lane parkers on Lauriston Place.
Interviewees do sometimes get out of control on live programmes (I think Fox was a guest of Wootton on this one although he has his own separate show) but the only get out is immediate apology and robust challenge which Wootton didn't provide. GB News and Wootton have been rowing back hard today, but that's damage limitation at this stage. It's a pretty bad compliance failure. I think Wootton and Fox appear to have joked in text messages about "freaking out in the gallery" but Ofcom are entitled to ask why that didn't translate to prompt action by the presenter.
It surprises me a bit that Fox has been suspended but not Wootton - he was the presenter and dropped a bollock pretty badly in a way that could well cost his employer.
There are long term trends, temporary blips and short term movements. It is not straightforward.
The long term trend since the 2019 GE is downwards for the Tories and upwards for Labour. That is the underlying trend. The gap may be over stated by the Tory DK issue which has been much discussed on here. But the trend is clear. No evidence of swingback.
There have been two significant blips. The Covid blip which favoured Boris and the Tories, and the Truss blip, which didn't.
There are several short term movements mirroring short term political events but these do not persist
Hall doing as well as the Conservatives did in London in 2019 at 32% but Khan doing 13% worse than the 48% Labour got in London in 2019
Beyond that, there's been no noise yet about the voting system having been changed. Will people notice? The nature of the race will be very different if they do.
Lots of big companies will have an associated charitable trust that does good work, but they don’t claim that the company is a charity. The Carlsberg Foundation, a charity, controls 74% of Carlsberg: a large chunk of Carlsberg’s profits goes to educational charitable purposes (in Denmark). Bupa has no shareholders: all profits are re-invested. I think that’s great. Go David Cameron’s Big Society! But I don’t think that means Carlsberg, the brewer, or Bupa are charities.
And I don’t think a private school, where most of their activity is on providing education for a fee, is remotely comparable to Oxfam running some charity shops.
One can only presume he has, in fact, given up on any idea of career progression. Mayor is it, for him
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
All profits go to the parent charity. It's a common tax avoidance model - National Trust do the same thing aiui, for example.
Because local businesses cannot compete as they are in the taxed economy, it cannibalises tax revenue that would otherwise go to Local or National Government. That in turn impacts local jobs, because the local businesses cannot employ them and the charity shops run on one staff member plus all the rest volunteers.
By comparison Independent schools do not financially disadvantage or close down other local schools.
So I'd argue that Oxfam are far worse.
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
Full fees, fair enough. But 30% bursaries to families with 60k?
That looks rather more like the double glazing model, where the point of the list price is to have a massive discount applied.
As for the wider schools VAT issue, FE colleges don't get it either, and never have;
https://feweek.co.uk/no-plans-to-exempt-colleges-from-vat-says-treasury-secretary/
Tick, tick, tick
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
https://www.currys.co.uk/products/philips-eco-conscious-hd264011-2slice-toaster-white-10228931.html
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
Well, of course
Rent Controls?
Labour ❌
Lib Dems ❌
Greens ✅
Wealth tax?
Labour ❌
Lib Dems ❌
Greens ✅
Renationalise utilities?
Labour ❌
Lib Dems ❌
Greens ✅
Scrap tuition fees?
Labour ❌
Lib Dems ❌
Greens ✅
The choice is clear
https://x.com/PeterTatchell/status/1706736698716012922?s=20
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
Sozza.
One other thing I note is that it is not clear whether that is pre-tax or post-tax income. I can't help with that - no data.
Compare to tax breaks on child care - we give tax fe childcare for couples where each partner earns less than £100k pre-tax - a household pre-tax income of up to £200k.
Perhaps we could stop tax subsidised childcare for household incomes over £55k, or give tax breaks on independent education where both partners have *individual* incomes under £100k !
It is the balance Mr Starmer needs to strike.
Today’s line, is that it was the US and UK who planned the attack on the naval HQ.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/09/27/ukraine-russia-war-live-sokolov-black-sea-mod-offensive/
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.