Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
Still can't believe the news about Lisa Cameron defecting.
There have historically been a broad range of political views within the SNP, independence aside.
Lisa Cameron voted against her party on legalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland and on a bill to prevent anti-abortion protests in the vicinity of clinics. So, as with Kate Forbes, I think there's a strong religious conservatism that put her at odds with mainstream SNP views. Her argument is that she was, at best, ostracised by the SNP in Westminster and her constituency due to these views - whether that's wholly correct or whether other clashes were involved, I don't know.
Going Tory rather than just resigning the whip does seem a bit of a pointed FU to her former colleagues, and is quite a stark illustration of one of the major divides in the SNP. Being pro-independence doesn't mean you agree on other things, and that's a real problem for the SNP.
Others have asked on here why she didn't defect to Labour. Possibly it's due to her being closer to the Tories, but I note she was a union rep in her past career. I'd actually not be hugely surprised if she had conversations with Labour - parties don't necessary welcome defectors with open arms where the backstory is problematic, and she wouldn't be the first prospective defector by any means to make a confidential approach and have it politely brushed off.
Of course it may well be the case the Tories reached out to her.
J @Beyond_Topline Let's be honest, the seat she's in now, there's no point defecting to the Tories, there's nothing in her interest to do so. She obviously didn't come cap in hand.
They've given her something, we just don't know what yet.
I don't know. The Tories need a bit of a boost, and she wants to stick two fingers up to the SNP.
Does there need to be more to it than that? And what can the Tories offer her realistically? They're not going to waste a peerage on her, and she's leaving Parliament at the same time as they are likely to leave Government. She'll get a bit of a hero's welcome, and that'll be nice for her. But I'm not sure there's more to it than the obvious.
The insinuation is that she was bribed into doing it. It’s just a smear.
Oh come on. Whilst I agree with you that there probably wasn't a deal in this case for the reasons I stated, it wouldn't be at all unusual for a potentially defecting MP to say, "You know what, I think I still have a lot to offer in public life. Out of interest, I wondered what form that might take were I to take the bold step of joining your party?"
That might all be a bit grubby, but it isn't cash in brown envelopes.
Maybe it is unusual, maybe it is not. But the original tweet claimed there definitely was one, that she definitely received some incentive to defect. That’s a smear because it is not backed up with any evidence whatsoever.
It is backed by evidence. That evidence is circumstantial and I don't personally think the case is proved. But circumstantial evidence is evidence.
I disagree. The insinuation that her decision was motivated by profit is not backed by any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.
To be fair, I think the tweet is in the context of Rishi apparently being the one to that did the deal which led to her taking the Tory whip. Not a smoking gun granted, but it does make you wonder what she got out of "the deal". But maybe just giving the middle finger to the SNP leadership was reason enough.
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
That would be a big improvement. I think 3 govt apps might be the sweet spot to ensure there is still some competition and innovation but not the massive fragmentation we have currently.
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
I am no fan of these displays and I have consistently said what the issue would be....you start getting involved in politics....and now the problem is of course that they have done it for loads of other countries and causes, now, Israel faces its worst day in 50 years, more Jews murdered in a single day since the Holocaust, a barbaric terrorist attack....and erhh, well, erhhh....blame on both sides....they were even given an easy way out suggestion by Mann, light it up today, not match day.
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
Says the person who is saying Jews can't defend themselves from people who are deliberately murdering babies, children and cutting babies out of pregnant women's wombs.
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
I am no fan of these displays, the problem is of course that they have done it for loads of other countries and causes, now, Israel faces its worst day in 50 years, and erhh, well, erhhh...
Exactly, it’s the inconsistency in their reaction which is the issue.
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
I am no fan of these displays, the problem is of course that they have done it for loads of other countries and causes, now, Israel faces its worst day in 50 years, and erhh, well, erhhh...
The displays whenever they’re done just annoy me . Holding a vigil or march in support fine . I just find the whole virtue signaling wherever it is just grating .
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
I am no fan of these displays and I have consistently said what the issue would be....you start getting involved in politics....and now the problem is of course that they have done it for loads of other countries and causes, now, Israel faces its worst day in 50 years, more Jews murdered in a single day since the Holocaust, a barbaric terrorist attack....and erhh, well, erhhh....blame on both sides....
Precisely. They shouldn’t do it for anyone, but having decided to….
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
Lets hope it isn't developed by the people behind the COVID app....
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
I am no fan of these displays and I have consistently said what the issue would be....you start getting involved in politics....and now the problem is of course that they have done it for loads of other countries and causes, now, Israel faces its worst day in 50 years, more Jews murdered in a single day since the Holocaust, a barbaric terrorist attack....and erhh, well, erhhh....blame on both sides....
Precisely. They shouldn’t do it for anyone, but having decided to….
And now its unsurprising that Jewish people are shall we say a tad pissed off. And some of the BS excuses, well Australia have to play Palestine in in the future....
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
It's an app that is likely to manage a great deal of data linking individuals, telephone numbers, car registrations, credit card details, possibly addresses etc. It will also facilitate quite large financial transfers between individuals and Councils, let traffic wardens across the country know who is and is not permitted to park and for how long. It will have a high potential to cause difficulties nationwide if it goes down for any period of time.
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
As difficult as it be, there can be no comeback for Hamas after this, they have crossed the line and need to be completely and utterly vanquished.
This sort of behaviour is simply intolerable, and it is existential and proportionate for Israel to end it.
I don't think Hamas is really an existential threat to Israel. Not really.
But I completely agree it needs to be vanquished, not only to protect Israel from further similar attacks, but also for the Palestinian people who are very ill served by Hamas.
If Hamas is vanquished (and Netanyahu deposed) there is some hope that the 75 year old conflict can be moderated.
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
Says the person who is saying Jews can't defend themselves from people who are deliberately murdering babies, children and cutting babies out of pregnant women's wombs.
Oh enough with this . You’ve made your point and I think we get it !
By the way over 450 children in Gaza have now been killed , any thoughts on that ? Israel of course has a right to defend itself but with that comes the acceptance that the civilian casualties in Gaza will go through the roof .
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
It will be like the Test and Trace App, or what social media says about the Test and Trace App.
I bet if the FA had just lit up Wembley tonight, nobody would be saying anything, same way as lots of other places around the world did it over the past couple of days.
They signal their virtue, only a tiny number of crazies are actually truly outraged (and they are so radical they would be outraged literally about anything i.e. some Jewish person has a senior FA job), for most it is somewhere between a lovely gesture through to a bit of an empty one that doesn't really achieve much.
And forgotten by the weekend.
Its this weird upper middle class thing of feeling the offence on behalf of others and having an exaggerated sense of the size of it.
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
Couple of decades, then ?
As I am in the process of trying to use NHS digital to book a hospital referral and failing for second day running I would say you are on the optimistic side.
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
It's an app that is likely to manage a great deal of data linking individuals, telephone numbers, car registrations, credit card details, possibly addresses etc. It will also facilitate quite large financial transfers between individuals and Councils, let traffic wardens across the country know who is and is not permitted to park and for how long. It will have a high potential to cause difficulties nationwide if it goes down for any period of time.
It isn't "Snake" on your Nokia 440.
Getting it working 99% of the time is easy enough - several people on here could probably do it. But a 1% failure rate would be (at a guess) tens of thousands of failures per day, and thousands of complaints. You really need 99.99% or 99.999 success rate, and that involves dealing with loads of things, including complex edge and corner cases.
Still can't believe the news about Lisa Cameron defecting.
There have historically been a broad range of political views within the SNP, independence aside.
Lisa Cameron voted against her party on legalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland and on a bill to prevent anti-abortion protests in the vicinity of clinics. So, as with Kate Forbes, I think there's a strong religious conservatism that put her at odds with mainstream SNP views. Her argument is that she was, at best, ostracised by the SNP in Westminster and her constituency due to these views - whether that's wholly correct or whether other clashes were involved, I don't know.
Going Tory rather than just resigning the whip does seem a bit of a pointed FU to her former colleagues, and is quite a stark illustration of one of the major divides in the SNP. Being pro-independence doesn't mean you agree on other things, and that's a real problem for the SNP.
Others have asked on here why she didn't defect to Labour. Possibly it's due to her being closer to the Tories, but I note she was a union rep in her past career. I'd actually not be hugely surprised if she had conversations with Labour - parties don't necessary welcome defectors with open arms where the backstory is problematic, and she wouldn't be the first prospective defector by any means to make a confidential approach and have it politely brushed off.
Of course it may well be the case the Tories reached out to her.
J @Beyond_Topline Let's be honest, the seat she's in now, there's no point defecting to the Tories, there's nothing in her interest to do so. She obviously didn't come cap in hand.
They've given her something, we just don't know what yet.
I don't know. The Tories need a bit of a boost, and she wants to stick two fingers up to the SNP.
Does there need to be more to it than that? And what can the Tories offer her realistically? They're not going to waste a peerage on her, and she's leaving Parliament at the same time as they are likely to leave Government. She'll get a bit of a hero's welcome, and that'll be nice for her. But I'm not sure there's more to it than the obvious.
The insinuation is that she was bribed into doing it. It’s just a smear.
Oh come on. Whilst I agree with you that there probably wasn't a deal in this case for the reasons I stated, it wouldn't be at all unusual for a potentially defecting MP to say, "You know what, I think I still have a lot to offer in public life. Out of interest, I wondered what form that might take were I to take the bold step of joining your party?"
That might all be a bit grubby, but it isn't cash in brown envelopes.
Maybe it is unusual, maybe it is not. But the original tweet claimed there definitely was one, that she definitely received some incentive to defect. That’s a smear because it is not backed up with any evidence whatsoever.
It is backed by evidence. That evidence is circumstantial and I don't personally think the case is proved. But circumstantial evidence is evidence.
I disagree. The insinuation that her decision was motivated by profit is not backed by any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.
To be fair, I think the tweet is in the context of Rishi apparently being the one to that did the deal which led to her taking the Tory whip. Not a smoking gun granted, but it does make you wonder what she got out of "the deal". But maybe just giving the middle finger to the SNP leadership was reason enough.
And sympathy from Rishi which she wasn't getting from her SNP colleagues.
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
I am no fan of these displays and I have consistently said what the issue would be....you start getting involved in politics....and now the problem is of course that they have done it for loads of other countries and causes, now, Israel faces its worst day in 50 years, more Jews murdered in a single day since the Holocaust, a barbaric terrorist attack....and erhh, well, erhhh....blame on both sides....
Precisely. They shouldn’t do it for anyone, but having decided to….
And now its unsurprising that Jewish people are shall we say a tad pissed off. And some of the BS excuses, well Australia have to play Palestine in in the future....
Fucksake, what's with the Mail-esque pearl-clutching?
Innocent people have been kidnapped, tortured, and murdered and now 2 million other people - the vast majority also innocent and about half of whom are children - are trapped in a hell hole.
Whether Wembley is lit or not is irrelevant. Get a sense of proportion and quit the petty point-scoring.
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
It's an app that is likely to manage a great deal of data linking individuals, telephone numbers, car registrations, credit card details, possibly addresses etc. It will also facilitate quite large financial transfers between individuals and Councils, let traffic wardens across the country know who is and is not permitted to park and for how long. It will have a high potential to cause difficulties nationwide if it goes down for any period of time.
It isn't "Snake" on your Nokia 440.
Getting it working 99% of the time is easy enough - several people on here could probably do it. But a 1% failure rate would be (at a guess) tens of thousands of failures per day, and thousands of complaints. You really need 99.99% or 99.999 success rate, and that involves dealing with loads of things, including complex edge and corner cases.
That is much, much more complex.
Indeed. And you also need to be rock solid on data security and financial management given aggregate value of transactions.
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
How very odd. 'New Scot' is in my experience an entirely positive term. Someone who has made a positive decision to immigrate to Scotland and to take part in life there. But maybe it is no longer PC.
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Israel’s Parliament, or Knesset, gathered on Thursday night to formally swear in the new wartime unity government between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his erstwhile rival, Benny Gantz. The move “projects a message of massive strength, both at home and abroad,” Netanyahu said. “We are standing in battle together.”
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
What could possibly go wrong?
Surely it will just be tendered, and the best of the existing apps should win X years as provider to HMG. Probably non-exclusive but lots of support being flagged as the U.K. parking app.
Though, that said, we might want the IP so there was consistency once we reprocure. Either way, clearly one for the private sector.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken says images of what happened "harken" back to ISIS on rampage.
Looks to me that we can be in no doubt US is now fully behind Israeli plans to invade and deal with this.
People like Blinken are harden political figures who I am sure been witness to lots of nasty images in their time. The shock and horror of seeing these images are obvious.
Scottish Nationalism is full of bigotry, we see it on here with Scotch experts.
An SNP councillor who called a Sri Lankan-born Labour opponent a “new Scot” has been reported to a watchdog over the “racist” remarks.
Kairin van Sweeden, an Aberdeen city councillor, made the comments about Deena Tissera during a heated meeting on Wednesday on the cost of living crisis and how to spend city funds.
“I realise as a ‘new Scot’, councillor Tissera maybe doesn’t know about the mitigations [to austerity] that the SNP government have had to put in over the years,” Van Sweeden said. “For example, the bedroom tax . . . Maybe you’re not aware of the bedroom tax?”
Tissera, councillor for Hilton, Woodside and Stockethill, moved to Aberdeen for university and became a British citizen in June. Last year she became the first woman of colour to be elected as an Aberdeen city councillor.
She has reported the incident to the Standards Commission, the body that policies the conduct of councillors in Scotland. She has also written to Humza Yousaf, asking him to suspend Van Sweeden and investigate her comment
M Tauqeer Malik, the Labour group leader, interrupted Van Sweeden to protest at her comments, leaving David Cameron, the lord provost, unable to regain control of the chamber.
“I would like to be respected,” Tissera told the chamber. “I do not appreciate those comments. I have taken the Life in the UK test to become a citizen. I probably know more than you do.”
Cameron adjourned the council meeting in an attempt to calm the situation.
Van Sweeden later told the meeting: “I would like to apologise to councillor Tissera unreservedly if anything I said to you has caused personal offence in any way. I hope you can accept my apology.”
Tissera said that the comments made her feel like “an outsider” and that she was “absolutely hurt” by her words. “I’m not a second-class citizen. I am a citizen of this country,” she added.
Tissera later told the Press and Journal that she believed Van Sweeden’s comments were “absolutely racist” and criticised her “empty apology”.
“The innuendo was that I had just come off the boat and, as a so-called new Scot, I was not as Scottish as others in the room,” she said.
“And therefore, it insinuates I do not know about Scotland despite being a British citizen.
It's great that the PB Scotch experts thing still rankles.
Did The Times have its dinner money stolen by the SNP? It's certainly taken on the main never done whining about the nasty Nats mantle from all the other organs who have been enthusiastic SNP bashers up to now.
What exactly do you think The Times has done wrong here? There was a news story. They reported it. It’s what newspapers do. Clue’s in the name. Was the reporting inaccurate? What’s the problem?
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
What could possibly go wrong?
Surely it will just be tendered, and the best of the existing apps should win X years as provider to HMG. Probably non-exclusive but lots of support being flagged as the U.K. parking app.
Though, that said, we might want the IP so there was consistency once we reprocure. Either way, clearly one for the private sector.
I'm sure it would involve the private sector, but the IP issue you mention is non-trivial.
Also, the whole point is it WOULD be exclusive otherwise it doesn't solve the issue people apparently lie awake at night about of different apps in different places. So you're converting a competitive market into a monopoly with reduced incentive to improve the product or provide a high quality of service.
This all has the feeling of something that hasn't been thought through and will either not happen or be a bit of a hot mess.
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
What’s “full British Citizenship”? Is there some halfway house (BNO’s notwithstanding) we should know about?
I think there were limited ones, such as those granted to people from Hong Kong. It's not as binary as you think, or at least wasn't. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
What exactly do you think The Times has done wrong here? There was a news story. They reported it. It’s what newspapers do. Clue’s in the name. Was the reporting inaccurate? What’s the problem?
What exactly do you think The Times has done wrong here? There was a news story. They reported it. It’s what newspapers do. Clue’s in the name. Was the reporting inaccurate? What’s the problem?
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
How very odd. 'New Scot' is in my experience an entirely positive term. Someone who has made a positive decision to immigrate to Scotland and to take part in life there. But maybe it is no longer PC.
Difficult sometimes to keep up with what is PC. Humza's probably a reliable guide tho. BTW not sure of what to make of the Scottish Parliament apparently refusing to fly the Israeli flag. Is this an outlier or standard practice?
Israel’s Parliament, or Knesset, gathered on Thursday night to formally swear in the new wartime unity government between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his erstwhile rival, Benny Gantz. The move “projects a message of massive strength, both at home and abroad,” Netanyahu said. “We are standing in battle together.”
What exactly do you think The Times has done wrong here? There was a news story. They reported it. It’s what newspapers do. Clue’s in the name. Was the reporting inaccurate? What’s the problem?
Most decent people find that blatant racism rankles. Divisive racist nats get very rankled when they are called out as blatant racists
Fck me, it’s like Candyman, say Scotch Expert a few times and they all come crawling out of the woodwork.
I've done that on PB - suggest to one of the new Scottish denizens he was missing something because he hadn't been here long enough to realise the background. It was actually @RochdalePioneers and the matter was the use of 'Scottish' in most SG buildings, depts, etc. which had surprised him IIRC. It dates from up to a century before the Holyrood Parliament - the start of the administrative devolution from the 1890s onwards. I don't recall him complaining at all, quite amicable. A most interesting discussion, not least the insight into the interpretations that could be placed on the naming by people not familiar with the situation.
On topic, Badenoch has disappointed as a Minister. And Mordaunt's 'stand up and fight' speech was empty-headed and batshit insane.
Mordaunt seems strangely insecure in the setting of a leadership debate or set piece speech. She'd obviously worked a lot on her conference speech but the end result was both wooden and weird.
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
How very odd. 'New Scot' is in my experience an entirely positive term. Someone who has made a positive decision to immigrate to Scotland and to take part in life there. But maybe it is no longer PC.
Difficult sometimes to keep up with what is PC. Humza's probably a reliable guide tho. BTW not sure of what to make of the Scottish Parliament apparently refusing to fly the Israeli flag. Is this an outlier or standard practice?
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
Israel releases images of babies murdered and burned by Hamas as 'verified photos' of others beheaded by terrorists are 'confirmed' by local media and rescue team reveals pregnant woman 'had child sliced from her womb'
Lights don’t bring dead people back. This virtue signaling is now getting ridiculous . And this ridiculous Jews Don’t Count accusation.
I am no fan of these displays and I have consistently said what the issue would be....you start getting involved in politics....and now the problem is of course that they have done it for loads of other countries and causes, now, Israel faces its worst day in 50 years, more Jews murdered in a single day since the Holocaust, a barbaric terrorist attack....and erhh, well, erhhh....blame on both sides....
Precisely. They shouldn’t do it for anyone, but having decided to….
There is a slightly trickier point too, football in recent years has made a big deal out of its efforts to tackle racism. That's been a positive in my view given firstly, football's status as the only truly global sport and the appalling racism some players face online rather than from the terraces these days. Yet when you have a terrorist organisation who are explicitly antisemitic in their views - Hamas believe in and propagates Protocols levels antisemitism. And who are so antisemitic they've just committed the worst killing of Jews since the Second World War, even though they knew it would result in thousands of their own people dying, and do nothing to bring peace. Everyone has to shrug, stay quiet, add context and both sides it rather than stand with those who were the victims of that attack and mourn with them before we talk about the geopolitical picture and argue about history. Sometimes genocidal hatred is exactly that, and I think reason the thesis that 'Jews Don't Count' has struck a nerve is because Jewish people have got pretty fed up of saying "listen to what this person is saying they support and believe, this is antisemitic or at best tolerant of it" only for someone to inevitably turn round and go "Ah oh no it's got to be more complicated, as Israel's bad so it must just be about that". And the fact it's even happening after a pogrom deliberately done to start a war is very troubling.
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
With regard to the cash/cashless economy, perhaps it might be interesting to do a quick thought experiment.....
Suppose that at some time in the future, in the UK, you need to carry out a cash transaction; furthermore, that transaction requires you to receive some coins in change. What do you think the chances are of any of those coins bearing King Charles III's head?
No doubt the Royal Mint will strike King Charles coins, and a few might go into circulation, but most will be collector's proofs and the like. The few that make it into the public domain will be quickly snapped up as souvenirs. There are already so many QEII coins in the marketplace that are doing a perfectly good job that it's probably not worth the Bank of England or the Mint recalling them, other than for standard wear and tear - but that's a diminishing problem because so few people are using coins nowadays....
There's no blinding revelation at the end of this - but I reckon that in all probability I will never see the new King's head on a coin in general circulation. But I did recently buy a book of stamps, which are probably going the same way as the coin of the Realm.
Is Chas on stamps now? Stopped using those a while back - just do click and collect with the postman nowadays.
(P.S. find the prejudice that elderly folk can’t/won’t use contactless bizarre. Why don’t we put our efforts into reducing digital exclusion rather than propping up an obsolete form of barter?)
"Digital exclusion" isn't a clear cut thing.
Are you "digitally excluded" if you refuse to touch Facebook with a 10ft pole?
What if you refuse to install 10 parking apps of unknown provenance and security?
Or you prefer not to bother paying for mobile data that you don't need?
I’d answer No to all of your questions.
However, if you insist on paying cash for everything you certainly ARE digitally excluded because, apart from anything else, you are unable to buy anything online.
Contactless cards are one thing I think - it is when you get to 'apps' that the real problems start.
You might be surprised how many people don't buy things online, though.
Parking apps are evil. Officially.
Govt run car parks and those with over 200 spaces should be obliged to offer at least 2 from 3 out of cash, card and phone options.
Why on earth is a central diktat needed on this sort of stuff?
For private car parks, if people don't find it convenient enough, they don't use it and the operator loses out financially. With Council car parks, it's the same plus people can vote them out.
Public services have been regulated by government throughout my lifetime and many generations before me, with a view to ensuring wide access to them. Car parks should be part of that, and recent changes have been bad for the consumer and wider economy, imo of course.
The key protection on breadth of access is through anti-discrimination legislation. Legislating to require a particular form of access (as opposed to a more general requirement regarding undue discrimination) is a highly inflexible way to go about it that doesn't accept any scope for circumstances differing from place to place, or changing over time.
Changes over time are fine and can be easily implemented.
Variations from place to place are the problem. Someone who lives in Birmingham but visits Portsmouth once and wants to be able to park there shouldnt be required to download an app specific to council car parks in Portsmouth to do so. It is silly and disrupts trade, regardless of any kick back benefit to the council.
Why on earth should there be national legislation to provide a trivial benefit to the once in a blue moon visitor, at a cost to the local taxpayer who has to fork out to sustain two payment systems rather than one?
If Portsmouth decide, in consultation with residents and businesses, that it's worth having two forms of pavement (and I note your suggestion is this is in EVERY public parking location with a fee to pay), that's for them. If not, that's also for them.
I am not sure what your council is like but each one I have lived in treats motoring consultations as box ticking to get to its pre agreed answer and has little interest in what residents or businesses actually want.
And I don't think being able to park without having to download a local parking app is a trivial benefit, but a perfectly reasonable expectation.
People can vote against them, and they will presumably lose income in several ways (from parking and from other forms of income) if people are dissuaded from visiting.
There are loads of ways that a Council might make it marginally (or indeed significantly) harder for a visitor to park in an area - they could reduce spaces, expand residents' parking, pedestrianise areas, build affordable housing on a car park, increase charges, reduce maximum stays... are you going to regulate all of them from Westminster and Whitehall as well, or are you just going to have a laser focus on Parliament preventing Chipping Sodbury Council from putting people visiting from Elgin to the minor bother of downloading an app, as if that's the most consequential thing?
There are over 30 parking apps active in the UK. Downloading them all and maintaining them active and up to date is a lot of hassle.
And it is clear from polling that residents do not want this. 59% say they are angry.
Voting the councillors out doesn't really work, as whoever is in charge they are very cash strapped because of lack of central govt funding vs council obligations so chase any short term cash opportunities, however damaging or unpopular.
I thought there was an announcement recently that there would be a single HMG-sponsored app in the future?
A nice little central government IT project. What could possibly go wrong?
It is a parking app, not exactly building HS2 or a single NHS database.
It's an app that is likely to manage a great deal of data linking individuals, telephone numbers, car registrations, credit card details, possibly addresses etc. It will also facilitate quite large financial transfers between individuals and Councils, let traffic wardens across the country know who is and is not permitted to park and for how long. It will have a high potential to cause difficulties nationwide if it goes down for any period of time.
It isn't "Snake" on your Nokia 440.
Getting it working 99% of the time is easy enough - several people on here could probably do it. But a 1% failure rate would be (at a guess) tens of thousands of failures per day, and thousands of complaints. You really need 99.99% or 99.999 success rate, and that involves dealing with loads of things, including complex edge and corner cases.
That is much, much more complex.
Indeed. And you also need to be rock solid on data security and financial management given aggregate value of transactions.
"In emails to Mr Eden, which the journalist shared on Twitter, Mr Coren told him: 'You are a despicable disgusting piece of s**t. You're a lying conniving c**t. I hope you f***ing rot in hell'."
That would make even Sir Keir blush.
Giles Coren really is a piece of work.
I remember a spat he had with former Graun journalist Michael White. He just makes awful accusations and shoots from the hip. How he keeps getting work is a mystery if he is like this all the time.
The worst sort of Nepo Child.
He also famously blew his top when some hapless sub-editor removed an 'a' from one his articles.
What is a One Day Travelcard? We used to have them when I first moved to London two decades ago. Everyone uses contactless now and it just works it out automatically
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
What’s “full British Citizenship”? Is there some halfway house (BNO’s notwithstanding) we should know about?
It's awarded when you consume a Full English, Full Scottish, Full Irish, and Full Welsh breakfasts in one sitting*.
*I'm just assuming those are all things. I did have one with potato scone recently.
They are indeed all official breakfasts. I find the Scottish breakfast somewhat challenging: kipper, lorne sausage and white pudding all feature as I recall.
What is a One Day Travelcard? We used to have them when I first moved to London two decades ago. Everyone uses contextless now and it just works it out automatically
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
What’s “full British Citizenship”? Is there some halfway house (BNO’s notwithstanding) we should know about?
It's awarded when you consume a Full English, Full Scottish, Full Irish, and Full Welsh breakfasts in one sitting*.
*I'm just assuming those are all things. I did have one with potato scone recently.
They are indeed all official breakfasts. I find the Scottish breakfast somewhat challenging: kipper, lorne sausage and white pudding all feature as I recall.
Not normally all on the same plate. Does a full English still include fried bread?
Since we're instructed that the Times cannot be trusted because they hate the SNP or whatever, can anyone find an approved source which has a view on the Aberdeen matter? If politicians are blowing things out of proportion using racism as a smokescreen that's worth condemning after all.
And since non-experts cannot comment themselves or ask for comment from experts, apparently, I'd like to come to a view somehow at least, so I can privately condemn or acquit in my own mind.
Also, remember that whinging about papers you don't like is only worth mocking when right wing loons do it. When you do it it is fully justified of course (drawing attention to it is probably going to be labelled as obsessive or something, because 2-3 comments is obsession).
Well there's an update on the story.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
What’s “full British Citizenship”? Is there some halfway house (BNO’s notwithstanding) we should know about?
It's awarded when you consume a Full English, Full Scottish, Full Irish, and Full Welsh breakfasts in one sitting*.
*I'm just assuming those are all things. I did have one with potato scone recently.
They are indeed all official breakfasts. I find the Scottish breakfast somewhat challenging: kipper, lorne sausage and white pudding all feature as I recall.
Not normally all on the same plate. Does a full English still include fried bread?
We must stamp down on this immediately. Full force force of the Met needs to be thrown at anyone threatening kids.
No-one is threatening kids. Three schools have chosen to close as a precaution following some Hamas chap's call for a day of protest. There have been no threats against the schools or the children.
Comments
We must stamp down on this immediately. Full force force of the Met needs to be thrown at anyone threatening kids.
SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden has resigned her membership after Humza Yousaf labelled her language “unacceptable”.
Humza Yousaf said Kairin van Sweeden was right to apologise for her comments made during an Aberdeen City Council meeting on Wednesday, where she described Labour councillor Deena Tissera as a “new Scot”.
Councillor Tissera, who was born in Sri Lanka and holds full British citizenship, had since written to the First Minister urging him to suspend Van Sweeden and “stand together against racism”.
However, the SNP have confirmed Van Sweeden has “stepped back” from her SNP membership and referred herself to the Standards Commission.
A spokesperson said: "Cllr van Sweeden has taken the decision to refer herself to the Standards Commission and requested the SNP National Secretary investigate comments she made during yesterday's council meeting, which she immediately and unreservedly apologised for.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23852422.kairin-van-sweeden-resigns-membership-amid-new-scot-comment-row/
It isn't "Snake" on your Nokia 440.
But I completely agree it needs to be vanquished, not only to protect Israel from further similar attacks, but also for the Palestinian people who are very ill served by Hamas.
If Hamas is vanquished (and Netanyahu deposed) there is some hope that the 75 year old conflict can be moderated.
By the way over 450 children in Gaza have now been killed , any thoughts on that ? Israel of course has a right to defend itself but with that comes the acceptance that the civilian casualties in Gaza will go through the roof .
They signal their virtue, only a tiny number of crazies are actually truly outraged (and they are so radical they would be outraged literally about anything i.e. some Jewish person has a senior FA job), for most it is somewhere between a lovely gesture through to a bit of an empty one that doesn't really achieve much.
And forgotten by the weekend.
Its this weird upper middle class thing of feeling the offence on behalf of others and having an exaggerated sense of the size of it.
That is much, much more complex.
Innocent people have been kidnapped, tortured, and murdered and now 2 million other people - the vast majority also innocent and about half of whom are children - are trapped in a hell hole.
Whether Wembley is lit or not is irrelevant. Get a sense of proportion and quit the petty point-scoring.
It isn't impossible, but nor is it trivial.
Either you’re pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas.
You can’t be both.
Some things to note about this current conflict:
(thread)
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1711867766334992468.html
X was such a sensitive, intelligent guy, shame about that minor glitch of Holocaust denial.
THE FA ARE NAZIS
NY Times
Though, that said, we might want the IP so there was consistency once we reprocure. Either way, clearly one for the private sector.
Looks to me that we can be in no doubt US is now fully behind Israeli plans to invade and deal with this.
"Just know that Hamas is no friend of Palestine, and Netanyahu is no friend of Israel."
Officers have established there is nothing of concern on board a flight diverted to #Stansted Airport.
https://x.com/EssexPoliceUK/status/1712514242195145178?s=20
I presume it was somebody angrily demanding to use cash....
Then Hamas release this - making missiles from water pipes...
https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1712417359950983573
Also, the whole point is it WOULD be exclusive otherwise it doesn't solve the issue people apparently lie awake at night about of different apps in different places. So you're converting a competitive market into a monopoly with reduced incentive to improve the product or provide a high quality of service.
This all has the feeling of something that hasn't been thought through and will either not happen or be a bit of a hot mess.
Only another 3 hours to go .....
"The One Day Travelcard is being Withdrawn - Here's Why", Geoff Marshall, YouTube, Oct 12, 2023, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxdSmhe3RR4 , 13 mins.
*I'm just assuming those are all things. I did have one with potato scone recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FcA6NybeQY
"Scotch Expert,
Scotch Expert,
Scotch Expert,
Scotch Expert,
Scotch Expert..."
(nobody appears. Is disappointed.)
BTW not sure of what to make of the Scottish Parliament apparently refusing to fly the Israeli flag. Is this an outlier or standard practice?
WTF is happening to our country.
https://x.com/archrose90/status/1712523292202950666?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67091137