The incremental smoking ban. Have we considered this:
Under the proposed ban, someone who was born on or after 1 January 2009 will never legally be allowed to buy tobacco. But, SFAICS, there is no parallel provision about use.
So, one day in about 2106 a 98 year old will be nipping out with his birth certificate to buy fags for a 97 year old.
More seriously, it is apparently possible to buy cigarettes online. What will prevent people continuing to do so, either from the UK or abroad?
I know people like to flag these “loopholes”, but isn’t the real point that this change makes it incrementally harder to purchase (you need the “loophole”), at the same time as the price exponentially increases, and therefore just helps continue to the downward trend? I don’t think anyone is daft enough to think banning today’s 14 year olds from buying fags means none will ever smoke them; but it clearly will massively reduce the numbers.
As a rule, fewer people do a thing if it’s unlawful.
If smoking is banned it undermines the case for liberalisation of drugs laws, which I seem to recall quite a few posters on here are in favour of.
Indeed. I would suggest waiting five years and seeing if a significant illicit trade to the underage group appears in NZ, and if so how related is it to organised crime. I suspect the illicit trade will just be casual amongst acquantences rather than organised but don't see why we need to rush this when we will have real life evidence soon enough.
Because people are becoming addicted to smoking and dying.
Err, thanks for the health lesson but believe it or not I am aware of that, but think it right to balance it against the risks of helping grow organised crime. I can see why political discourse and consensus is hard to build in modern life. I am slightly in favour of the change you want, but want it done carefully instead of on a PMs whim, and simplistic emotional responses such as that are only going to turn me against it.
Of course it should be done carefully (and scepticism about this Government doing something carefully is understandable). My response was not simplistic and emotional. These are cold hard facts. There is reason to take action and not delay.
Of course, there may also be reasons to delay action or not do this too. There are arguments for and against. The possibility of helping grow organised crime is one reason. OK, let's consider this reason.
The way the proposal works, the minimum age goes up by one year per year. So, in the first year, the age goes from 18 to 19. The only people affected are then then 18 year olds who want to smoke. This is not a lot of people. It seems unlikely that organised crime would grow significantly around providing cigarettes to 18 year olds. In the second year, the age goes from 19 to 20. There are now 18 and 19 year olds affected. That's still not a lot of people. The way this works, it's a slow change. No current smoker is affected. I suggest that means any impact on organised crime is minimal to begin with.
Because the change proposed comes on in this slow, year by year process, if problems arise, we're going to have time to correct course, or introduce mitigations.
Is anyone else as puzzled asI am at the 10% LDs who read the Mail?
I think a surprisingly (to us) large proportion of the people who still buy newspapers aren't actually interested in politics. They might go and do their democratic duty come voting day, but politics barely crosses their mind on a day-to-day basis. They only buy the newspaper for the crossword, cartoons, gossip or astrology columns.
Hmmm. So you’re saying political parties need to get into the astrology racket?
The benefit to cost ratio is between 1.2 and 1.8 of 8 trains an hour.
However costs exclude sunk costs; and cancellation and remediation costs of the counterfactual of stopping phase 1 have been included.
Euston costs are still included.
Effectively this shows that phase has passed the stage of no return and it is better continuating than not.
However the BCR over the total costs of phase 1 alone must be dire.
It is still proposed to spend £12b on the Phase 2b section effectively as part of the Manchester to Liverpool new build. This is the most expensive section of phase 2b as a result of tunnelling under South Manchester and Piccadilly extension.
So what Sunak has actually cancelled is the relatively cheap element of HS2 through fields between Handsacre and Hulseheath, plus a reduced Euston station.
The incremental smoking ban. Have we considered this:
Under the proposed ban, someone who was born on or after 1 January 2009 will never legally be allowed to buy tobacco. But, SFAICS, there is no parallel provision about use.
So, one day in about 2106 a 98 year old will be nipping out with his birth certificate to buy fags for a 97 year old.
More seriously, it is apparently possible to buy cigarettes online. What will prevent people continuing to do so, either from the UK or abroad?
These type of bans aren't ever really about making it impossible to ever buy them, its more about putting barriers in the way that make it harder, so much less likely people start in the first place. The like the other end of the telescope of how online shopping has been optimised to make it as frictionless as possible. This kind of policy just introduces a load of extra friction to the process with the hope that people just don't get started.
Is anyone else as puzzled asI am at the 10% LDs who read the Mail?
I think a surprisingly (to us) large proportion of the people who still buy newspapers aren't actually interested in politics. They might go and do their democratic duty come voting day, but politics barely crosses their mind on a day-to-day basis. They only buy the newspaper for the crossword, cartoons, gossip or astrology columns.
I would also suggest with the Mail, although a certain section of population look their nose down at it / bang on about the support for Brown shirts etc, I think for many its a middle ground between the red top tabloids and broadsheets in terms of "readability" and sections provdied. There isn't really any competitors now in that space.
Also, just because somebody reads it doesn't mean they agree with say Mail's "keen" focus on immigration.
I often read the Guardian, but don't agree with a lot of it or end up rolling my eyes are what I consider the more nonsense stuff.
If smoking is banned it undermines the case for liberalisation of drugs laws, which I seem to recall quite a few posters on here are in favour of.
The one position I don't understand is people who are fanatically anti-tobacco smoking and fanatically pro-all other types of drugs. (which seems to accurately describe the views of a lot of people in North America).
The incremental smoking ban. Have we considered this:
Under the proposed ban, someone who was born on or after 1 January 2009 will never legally be allowed to buy tobacco. But, SFAICS, there is no parallel provision about use.
So, one day in about 2106 a 98 year old will be nipping out with his birth certificate to buy fags for a 97 year old.
More seriously, it is apparently possible to buy cigarettes online. What will prevent people continuing to do so, either from the UK or abroad?
These type of bans aren't ever really about making it impossible to ever buy them, its more about putting barriers in the way that make it harder, so much less likely people start in the first place. The like the other end of the telescope of how online shopping has been optimised to make it as frictionless as possible. This kind of policy just introduces a load of extra friction to the process with the hope that people just don't get started.
Have them sold only by pharmacists, along with all of the other currently-illegal drugs.
The benefit to cost ratio is between 1.2 and 1.8 of 8 trains an hour.
However costs exclude sunk costs and cancellation and remediation costs of the counterfactual of stopping phase 1 have been included.
Euston costs are still included.
Effectively this shows that phase has passed the stage of no return and it is better continuating than not.
However the BCR over the total costs of phase 1 alone must be dire.
It is still proposed to spend £12b on the Phase 2b section effectively as part of the Manchester to Liverpool new build. This is the most expensive section of phase 2b as a result of tunnelling under South Manchester and Piccadilly extension.
So what Sunak has actually cancelled is the relatively cheap element of HS2 through fields between Handsacre and Hulseheath, plus a reduced Euston station.
Yep - the only saving is in Euston and that destroys the viability of the whole scheme.
I'm not kidding when I say move Parliament to Bradford and watch how quickly the whole of HS2 and NPR reappears...
Is anyone else as puzzled asI am at the 10% LDs who read the Mail?
I think a surprisingly (to us) large proportion of the people who still buy newspapers aren't actually interested in politics. They might go and do their democratic duty come voting day, but politics barely crosses their mind on a day-to-day basis. They only buy the newspaper for the crossword, cartoons, gossip or astrology columns.
I would also suggest with the Mail, although a certain section of population look their nose down at it / bang on about the support for Brown shirts etc, I think for many its a middle ground between the red top rags and broadsheets in terms of "readability". There isn't really any competitors now in that space.
Yup. It always was, and I think remains, the metaphorical “house wives’ favourite”. You can see that when you skim through it.
Olaf Scholz is refusing to send Ukraine powerful Taurus cruise missiles, Germany’s equivalent of Britain’s Storm Shadows, out of fear that they will be used to attack the Kerch bridge.
The German chancellor is resisting pressure from Britain and Ukraine to deliver the missiles, the German newspaper Bild reported, despite reassurances from London that they would only be fired at targets approved by Berlin.
Mr Scholz is particularly concerned that Kyiv would use Taurus missiles, which have a range of 310 miles, to target the Kerch bridge linking Russia with occupied Crimea, Der Spiegel reported.
---
He is worried they might use them to win the war....
Like musical statues. He doesn't want to be the one wobbling around holding a Taurus missile when the music stops. Far better to let the Brits and French take the flak.
The incremental smoking ban. Have we considered this:
Under the proposed ban, someone who was born on or after 1 January 2009 will never legally be allowed to buy tobacco. But, SFAICS, there is no parallel provision about use.
So, one day in about 2106 a 98 year old will be nipping out with his birth certificate to buy fags for a 97 year old.
More seriously, it is apparently possible to buy cigarettes online. What will prevent people continuing to do so, either from the UK or abroad?
These type of bans aren't ever really about making it impossible to ever buy them, its more about putting barriers in the way that make it harder, so much less likely people start in the first place. The like the other end of the telescope of how online shopping has been optimised to make it as frictionless as possible. This kind of policy just introduces a load of extra friction to the process with the hope that people just don't get started.
Have them sold only by pharmacists, along with all of the other currently-illegal drugs.
New Zealand, who pioneered this year-by-year approach, has a broader set of policies that have included making cigarettes available in far fewer places. So, yes, that would be a sensible complement.
If smoking is banned it undermines the case for liberalisation of drugs laws, which I seem to recall quite a few posters on here are in favour of.
The one position I don't understand is people who are fanatically anti-smoking and fanatically pro-all other types of drugs. (which seems to accurately describe the views of a lot of people in North America).
I used to be in favour of legalising cannabis until I went to Canada post-legalisation and smelt it everywhere. I am now only in favour if they get rid of the god awful smell.
New Zealand win. By 9 wickets. Dreadful start by the holders in their defence of the cricket 50 overs World Cup.
As I have always said (don't check yesterday's threads...), scrap 50 ODIs, waste of time, nobody is interested, nobody goes, rubbish. More T20 and of course (my fav....) Hundred....
I know people get jaded about hearing about war things, and I rarely post about it, but it looks like about 50 people were killed in a place called Hroza today. Ukraine says a Russian missile hit a food shop. Last count 49 51 people were dead as a result.
In the 7/7 attacks, about the same number of people were killed.
Think of the impact of 7/7 on this country, and how easy it is to skip past stories like "dozens killed in war-torn region missile attack".
New Zealand win. By 9 wickets. Dreadful start by the holders in their defence of the cricket 50 overs World Cup.
As I have always said (don't check yesterday's threads...), scrap 50 ODIs, waste of time, nobody is interested, nobody goes, rubbish. More T20 and of course (my fav....) Hundred....
Yes it’s a devalued format. Let’s make the last winners champions eternal and close down this World Cup to save money.
Olaf Scholz is refusing to send Ukraine powerful Taurus cruise missiles, Germany’s equivalent of Britain’s Storm Shadows, out of fear that they will be used to attack the Kerch bridge.
The German chancellor is resisting pressure from Britain and Ukraine to deliver the missiles, the German newspaper Bild reported, despite reassurances from London that they would only be fired at targets approved by Berlin.
Mr Scholz is particularly concerned that Kyiv would use Taurus missiles, which have a range of 310 miles, to target the Kerch bridge linking Russia with occupied Crimea, Der Spiegel reported.
---
He is worried they might use them to win the war....
Damn right they want to bomb the Kerch Bridge.
What does Herr Scholz think that Ukraine wants to do with missiles, park them in the square in Kiev and have Zelensky admire them from the palace?
After just 24 hours, the government has dropped its commitment to reopen the Leamside Line. It was included yesterday in the initial Network North announcements, now it’s gone.
Roads minister Richard Holden tells me Govt is now just ‘committed to looking into it’.
Furious reaction already. @henrimurison says this announcement makes the entirety of Network North a ‘fairytale’.
Is anyone else as puzzled asI am at the 10% LDs who read the Mail?
I think a surprisingly (to us) large proportion of the people who still buy newspapers aren't actually interested in politics. They might go and do their democratic duty come voting day, but politics barely crosses their mind on a day-to-day basis. They only buy the newspaper for the crossword, cartoons, gossip or astrology columns.
I would also suggest with the Mail, although a certain section of population look their nose down at it / bang on about the support for Brown shirts etc, I think for many its a middle ground between the red top rags and broadsheets in terms of "readability". There isn't really any competitors now in that space.
Yup. It always was, and I think remains, the metaphorical “house wives’ favourite”. You can see that when you skim through it.
There is a real “curtain twitching” element to the mail with a tick box of items or wording they use.
There is always some irrelevant statement about the value of someone’s house - today it transpires that the ref in the VAR screw up was outside his £800,000 house - what that has to do with anything is a mystery but will also be used for “murderer lived in a million pound house”. Maybe it’s to make their readers feel that they are better than murderers and referees because their houses are more valuable.
Then there is the weird thing where they have several pictures of a female celebrity half clothed always with the wording “x puts on a VERY busty display”. I guess this is so their readers can tut at this whilst the male is secretly thinking it’s great and the female turns to the “Femail” section for a guide to get toned for the summer whatever your age.
New Zealand win. By 9 wickets. Dreadful start by the holders in their defence of the cricket 50 overs World Cup.
It’ll be fine. We started slow last time.
And the tournament was handed to England thanks to a colossal umpiring fuck-up in the final. Should never have been England's.
No one can know that. It wasn’t the last ball.
Indeed, NZ could have won by 10 runs instead of the 5 it "should" have been. But come on, you know there's a huge argument in favour of it having made the difference. Balance of probabilities and all that. They got "given" five runs, and they "won" with a margin of 0 runs. It was an almighty fuckup and if it had been the other way around England fans would never have stopped going on about it.
After just 24 hours, the government has dropped its commitment to reopen the Leamside Line. It was included yesterday in the initial Network North announcements, now it’s gone.
Roads minister Richard Holden tells me Govt is now just ‘committed to looking into it’.
Furious reaction already. @henrimurison says this announcement makes the entirety of Network North a ‘fairytale’.
I am going to stick to Ivermectin for everything ;-)
I know where you can get hydroxychloroquine...
I'll take three boxes. Do you have the injectable bleach disinfectant available too?
Given the amount of COVID about at the moment, I think you are very sensible...
I am trying to take a strategic decision on when to take my bonus “resurgent Covid” week off work.
There is a fair bit about again. My Trust has reinvoked a mask mandate for staff in clinical areas again last week as indeed have a number of others. Mostly to prevent worsening of staff absences I think, though we do have 79 covid inpatients.
I have had the latest Pfizer booster, as a couple of colleagues were rather flattened by it in September. Apart from a craving for Microsoft products and a burning love of the illuminati there were no sideffects.
Comments
As a rule, fewer people do a thing if it’s unlawful.
Of course, there may also be reasons to delay action or not do this too. There are arguments for and against. The possibility of helping grow organised crime is one reason. OK, let's consider this reason.
The way the proposal works, the minimum age goes up by one year per year. So, in the first year, the age goes from 18 to 19. The only people affected are then then 18 year olds who want to smoke. This is not a lot of people. It seems unlikely that organised crime would grow significantly around providing cigarettes to 18 year olds. In the second year, the age goes from 19 to 20. There are now 18 and 19 year olds affected. That's still not a lot of people. The way this works, it's a slow change. No current smoker is affected. I suggest that means any impact on organised crime is minimal to begin with.
Because the change proposed comes on in this slow, year by year process, if problems arise, we're going to have time to correct course, or introduce mitigations.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-major-projects-portfolio-accounting-officer-assessments/continuing-investment-in-hs2-phase-1-accounting-officer-assessment-october-2023
The benefit to cost ratio is between 1.2 and 1.8 of 8 trains an hour.
However costs exclude sunk costs; and cancellation and remediation costs of the counterfactual of stopping phase 1 have been included.
Euston costs are still included.
Effectively this shows that phase has passed the stage of no return and it is better continuating than not.
However the BCR over the total costs of phase 1 alone must be dire.
It is still proposed to spend £12b on the Phase 2b section effectively as part of the Manchester to Liverpool new build. This is the most expensive section of phase 2b as a result of tunnelling under South Manchester and Piccadilly extension.
So what Sunak has actually cancelled is the relatively cheap element of HS2 through fields between Handsacre and Hulseheath, plus a reduced Euston station.
Also, just because somebody reads it doesn't mean they agree with say Mail's "keen" focus on immigration.
I often read the Guardian, but don't agree with a lot of it or end up rolling my eyes are what I consider the more nonsense stuff.
Todays Rutherglen by-election .
The Labour Party conference .
Next Monday to Wednesday the Supreme Court hear the governments appeal .
They have now allocated the 5 judges there . Some interesting background on the judges and notable cases they’ve overseen later for those interested .
I'm not kidding when I say move Parliament to Bradford and watch how quickly the whole of HS2 and NPR reappears...
And I have forecast LAB to win tonight. Are LAB getting nervous now?
Dreadful start by the holders in their defence of the cricket 50 overs World Cup.
I don’t have to smell cocaine.
It's a hammering but only one game.
In the 7/7 attacks, about the same number of people were killed.
Think of the impact of 7/7 on this country, and how easy it is to skip past stories like "dozens killed in war-torn region missile attack".
What does Herr Scholz think that Ukraine wants to do with missiles, park them in the square in Kiev and have Zelensky admire them from the palace?
This thread has gone the way of the Leamside line
There is always some irrelevant statement about the value of someone’s house - today it transpires that the ref in the VAR screw up was outside his £800,000 house - what that has to do with anything is a mystery but will also be used for “murderer lived in a million pound house”. Maybe it’s to make their readers feel that they are better than murderers and referees because their houses are more valuable.
Then there is the weird thing where they have several pictures of a female celebrity half clothed always with the wording “x puts on a VERY busty display”. I guess this is so their readers can tut at this whilst the male is secretly thinking it’s great and the female turns to the “Femail” section for a guide to get toned for the summer whatever your age.
But come on, you know there's a huge argument in favour of it having made the difference. Balance of probabilities and all that. They got "given" five runs, and they "won" with a margin of 0 runs. It was an almighty fuckup and if it had been the other way around England fans would never have stopped going on about it.
I have had the latest Pfizer booster, as a couple of colleagues were rather flattened by it in September. Apart from a craving for Microsoft products and a burning love of the illuminati there were no sideffects.