So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
We’ve been amply served with Israel-Palestine chat for weeks. I think we can afford a moment’s reflection on the performative malevolence of our Home Secretary.
NOT Israel/Palestine. Jew hatred in Britain. Which is actually a different matter although I would accept linked to affairs currently going on in the middle east. Britain's Jews feel bereft, abandoned and wondering whether central London is a safe space for them anymore. Most of you have spent recent weeks trying to avoid this entirely.
What seems to be ignored in all this, is that the sadistic butchery committed by Hamas meant Israel had no real choice. Hamas knew this. It's what they want. As are the demos in western countries. Etc.
My hope is that when the IDF has done what it has to do, that the Israeli public has the collective sense to expel Netanyahu and his cohorts from power and bring in a new team. It will be the only way forward.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
Perhaps when the police agree to let a pro Israel march take place we can take your whataboutery seriously.
You're telling us all "No, you can't talk about that, you must talk about this!"
You post what you want to post; I'll post what I want to.
Actually I said it was perfectly noteworthy to talk about Braverman and the homeless. But the refusal of supposed anti racists on this site day after day and week after week to talk about antisemitism leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Maybe you don't regard it as politically convenient for you. I get it.
... we are running out of sailors. We aren't recruiting enough sailors to man the ships. Since the number of ships is three support vessels, two destroyers, 1.5 aircraft carriers and HMS Bloody Victory, you'd think they'd manage to do this, but no, they done fucked up. Again.
Look I know you're all consumed with grave matters of the world and principle, but can we all focus for the moment that the current incarnation of the Conservative Party just doesn't know how to run the country. At all. They blew their wad with Truss and now they're just flailing around ("BAN SMOKING") like the Haribo cops trying to do heart surgery. Will somebody please put these deranged fuckers out of office so that they can go do their adulting GCSEs and come back when they can put a hammer to a nail? Because the country is falling apart.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
Particularly this one. No threshold means you could be the largest party with say 21% of the vote and get 55% of seats. Way beyond even FPTP.
Call it Super FPTP, where an entire party wins everything even if they win by a single vote.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
I work a lot on processes. I reject the trite slogan that some put out that the problem is never people, but process, because there are plenty of times when the problem really is people.
Nonetheless, you are correct that people don't stop and make a good process a lot of the time, or even think about what the aim of the process is, they just tweak and adjust and add layers of complexity in response to unfocused thoughts coming from a dozen competing directions, until you have a dog's breakfast, which we then expect officials to make work perfectly and others to use perfectly.
We need to be a lot smarter about the basic point of a lot of things.
Here is how it works. Full time teaching assistant. Doing an incredibly stressful job with SEN pupils. Abusive. Occasionally physically violent. 8:30 to 4:30. 15 minute break. 25 minutes for lunch unpaid. If nowt else is happening (which it rarely is). Pro rata'd down to 32 hours a week because of Legislation about school holidays. So. No opportunity for overtime or extended hours at all. Pay. £1500 a month gross. £1290 a month net. UC single person entitlement £368.74. Housing (including eligible service charges) £600 pcm. Deducted at 55 (!!) p in the pound. Total entitlement c £970. Deductions c £700. Total UC around £270 pcm. So. One arm of government is subsidising low pay and high rents.
Are TAs paid minimum wage? Not sure how that works.
So guessing that's because there's ~15 weeks of holidays but the statutory allowance is 5.6 weeks so the pro-rate is to cover the rest of the holidays that haven't been worked for otherwise?
Sort of makes sense, though why not work during the summer holidays?
When I was a student I worked at McDonalds during the holidays, not trying to be disrespectful but if you're working not as a professional teacher but as an assistant who is not qualified, why not pick up a summer job that would pay the same while you're not working over the summer?
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
Some definitions for you, which may prove helpful -
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
25000 christian wanted to march through north London and it was turned down. Perhaps they are in negotiations over other marches. Not seen anything yet.
And I won't soon forget the comment by a police officer to the Campaign Against Antisemitism's bus with pictures of the hostages on it 'Get out of central London.'
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
This is not an anti-British protest however much you want it to be for Culture War reasons.
LOL at your use of 'culture wars'. If you go on that march, remember that a large number of the people you are with, who you are chanting with, who you are encouraging, want the end of the state of Israel, and worse.
You are giving them your voice.
Hmm, this reads very much like the posts attacking @Cyclefree for her carefully considered views on women’s rights and trans rights a few months ago. At the time people criticised her for enabling and supporting far right anti-trans campaigners as she was a ‘fellow-traveler’.
The argument was wrong-headed then just as it is now. Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
No, it really doesn't. For one thing, Ms Free was not talking about going on a march with people who have those views.
What is this march for? Apparently, to call for a ceasefire and to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza - according to the PSC tweet below. Not about (say) releasing all the hostages back to Israel, stopping rocket attacks on Israel, or indeed for general peace.
And why the US Embassy? Why not (as an example) the Egyptian one, for the Egyptian government also has rather a lot of power over the situation, especially wrt the crossing and aid getting in. It all feeds into Iran's Little and Great Satan rhetoric, doesn't it?
The whole thing stinks.
Well, ultimately if some people are too dim to understand the most basic principles of free speech, that's their problem, not anyone else's.
Free speech has limits, does it not?
As an eminent philosopher once said:
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
Particularly this one. No threshold means you could be the largest party with say 21% of the vote and get 55% of seats. Way beyond even FPTP.
Call it Super FPTP, where an entire party wins everything even if they win by a single vote.
Sounds a bit like a Brexit referendum.
That was a glorified national survey rather than binding imposition of political power as a result though (for all a lot of people pretended it was).
It was informally binding, in that the public punished those they felt obstructed it, which is perfectly reasonable though.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
Perhaps when the police agree to let a pro Israel march take place we can take your whataboutery seriously.
You're telling us all "No, you can't talk about that, you must talk about this!"
You post what you want to post; I'll post what I want to.
Actually I said it was perfectly noteworthy to talk about Braverman and the homeless. But the refusal of supposed anti racists on this site day after day and week after week to talk about antisemitism leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Maybe you don't regard it as politically convenient for you. I get it.
I hate anti-semitism; I just don't really have much I can add to the conversation.
Yesterday we were all talking about cheerful stuff - specifically, 1990s music - and I posted a video of The Shamen's Ebeneezer Goode from, 1992.
And I noticed something rather cool: at approximately 21 seconds in, there's a character using what appears to be a Psion Series 3. OGH was a real trailblazer here - he used a Series 3 and then a Series 5, and hooked them up over IR to his phone so as to get email.
Here's to pioneering British tech company Psion, and it's founder David Potter. And what a shame that it never achieved its potential.
Reminds me of walking into an office some years ago and seeing two "tech bro's" attempting to touch the tip of their Palm Pilots together to make they sync. I said "This looks quite homoerotic."
I don't think they ever spoke to me again.
I always thought that Palm Pilot sounded like a euphemism for masturbator.
So those lads were attempting a bit of mutual palm piloting.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
Particularly this one. No threshold means you could be the largest party with say 21% of the vote and get 55% of seats. Way beyond even FPTP.
Call it Super FPTP, where an entire party wins everything even if they win by a single vote.
Sounds a bit like a Brexit referendum.
Funny it's always right wingers who want to grab total power .
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
Some definitions for you, which may prove helpful -
All true, apart from the recommendations one I feel. They may often be right at the front, which makes it more frustrating when it then takes 2 years or whatever to be formally responded to, mostly with a 'bugger off'.
Not that I regard all recommendations as sacred, some will always be nonsense.
BBC cover the bonfire procession, it appears that East Sussex Highways dept is also being burnt in effigy.
Tories don't seem very popular at Lewes bonfires. Have they ever before burnt all 3 of the top cabinet the same year?
They burnt Blair and Boris too, in some respects it is like Spitting Image, if you aren't being burnt in effigy at Lewes you aren't making enough impact
Am I going mad or is Braverman's tent crusade simply terrible politics?
You are not the target audience
Yes I get that. But my question is: is the electorate at large the target audience? Because if so, I think the electorate at large won't like it very much at all.
No
The target audience is Tory members who will vote for the next leader.
Is it even that?
Maybe Suella is just trying to get sacked. If Rishi grins inanely at this proposal, she'll suggest compulsory slaughter of all firstborn, and none of that namby pamby blood the on the gatepost getout clause.
What about age limits? I’m a first born.
So am I. But what we have to remember is that some of these firstborn are of foreign origin.
Oh shit!
Damn that's me gone. Especially with some supposed foreign origin barely further back than Suella's.
... we are running out of sailors. We aren't recruiting enough sailors to man the ships. Since the number of ships is three support vessels, two destroyers, 1.5 aircraft carriers and HMS Bloody Victory, you'd think they'd manage to do this, but no, they done fucked up. Again.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
Meloni ensuring she is on the path to being longest serving Italian PM
According to wiki since 1860 there's been 18 Italian PMs who Meloni has alreayd surpassed by surving for 1 year 13 days. I don't know how democratic they were for that entire period - not all of it, certainly - but that's pretty brutal.
Even then all but one of them still lasted longer than Truss did.
Italy has actually now had less than double the PMs we've had since the end of WW2, which is a lot better for them than I had expected. The last year or so has really undermined our ratio.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
I work a lot on processes. I reject the trite slogan that some put out that the problem is never people, but process, because there are plenty of times when the problem really is people.
Nonetheless, you are correct that people don't stop and make a good process a lot of the time, or even think about what the aim of the process is, they just tweak and adjust and add layers of complexity in response to unfocused thoughts coming from a dozen competing directions, until you have a dog's breakfast, which we then expect officials to make work perfectly and others to use perfectly.
We need to be a lot smarter about the basic point of a lot of things.
The point of the process is to get to a goal. Not to make people feel good that they have a weighty document. Nor is it to create something so complex that “ordinary” people can’t understand it.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
... we are running out of sailors. We aren't recruiting enough sailors to man the ships. Since the number of ships is three support vessels, two destroyers, 1.5 aircraft carriers and HMS Bloody Victory, you'd think they'd manage to do this, but no, they done fucked up. Again.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
You need young people to look after old people. If you don't breed your own, you have to import somebody else's kids to do it. We didn't breed enough and now we have to import nice Philipinas to wipe Grandad's bottom because there aren't enough of us to do it.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
Yes, like those who have supported "AV Plus" in the past. The "Plus" is basically an admission that AV is crap.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
It makes me think about places with majority bonus systems, which always make me think they have missed the point of proportional representation and rather than changing system when they think it no longer works, adopt an approach which acknowledges that without seeming to admit it.
There are upsides and downsides to every electoral system, and I'd prefer some kind of proportional one but all systems have negatives, and adding in bolt ons to undermine the principal of the system seems strange.
Particularly this one. No threshold means you could be the largest party with say 21% of the vote and get 55% of seats. Way beyond even FPTP.
Call it Super FPTP, where an entire party wins everything even if they win by a single vote.
Sounds a bit like a Brexit referendum.
Funny it's always right wingers who want to grab total power .
It's difficult to know, as the law does mean rewriting the electoral system, but a lot of the 'green paper' wording does sort of assume much of the current underlying electoral system, with the winning coalition brought to threshold. But it wouldn't be impossible for FdI to go it alone on a 30% vote share if the left looked fractured again come the next election. So, yes, very plausible authoritarian consequences do flow from this.
Aiui, the elected PM would still sit under a ceremonial president with veto rights over cabinet appointments below PM level (until the next constitutional crisis no doubt).
There's also anti- technocratic measures - the PM must be in parliament, and a VoNC / coalition breakdown spirals pretty quickly into an automatic GE for both PM and parliament.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
Collapsing the population is the solution to the housing shortage.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
Some definitions for you, which may prove helpful -
Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent Praise and honour for the non-participants
2) The Plan
The Plan
In the beginning, there was a plan, And then came the assumptions, And the assumptions were without form, And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers, And they spoke among themselves saying, "It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan And saw that it was good, And the Plan became Policy.
Italy looks to be embarking on an electoral reform that would make FPTP seem the pinnacle of proportionality.
The 🇮🇹 govt just approved an authoritarian constitutional reform that will introduce🧵
-DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER with a SINGLE ROUND SYSTEM -Put in the Constitution that any electoral law must give 55% OF SEATS to the most voted coalition/party, NO THRESHOLD
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
Collapsing the population is the solution to the housing shortage.
The way to solve a shortage is to build more.
Not compound the problem by creating other shortages.
"North Korea is a land of hunger, torture and indoctrination. It’s crushed under a cult of personality so punitive that citizens can be imprisoned if inspectors find any dust on the household portrait of supreme leader Kim Jong Un. Yet an 80-year-old grandmother who’s one of the central figures in the documentary “Beyond Utopia” is convinced it’s the best country on earth. A lifetime of brainwashing has her praising the Kim dynasty even as she and her family flee what they fear it’s going to do to them." source$:https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/2023/11/01/beyond-utopia-movie-review/
(Some doctors in the group that fixed my cataracts a few years ago voluntarily go to North Korea fromtime to time to fix eyes there. Why? I'll give you hint: For both operations, the doctors who did my eyes asked me if they could pray before the operations; naturally I said yes.)
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
Collapsing the population is the solution to the housing shortage.
Everybody wants a smaller population. Nobody wants to die. There's a problem in there somewhere...
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
Some definitions for you, which may prove helpful -
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
Collapsing the population is the solution to the housing shortage.
Everybody wants a smaller population. Nobody wants to die.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
This is a problem created by governments, on both sides, because instead of simply declaring and pursuing policy, they have decided it is politically more impressive to create a law about it, and so there's now a lot more potential for a new law or policy to contradict an earlier one.
But, well, focus groups are more impressed by politicians promising to create a law, than simply promising to do something.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
Clearly you have never heard of the demographic timebomb.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
Collapsing the population is the solution to the housing shortage.
Everybody wants a smaller population. Nobody wants to die. There's a problem in there somewhere...
I can think of a few groups who believe they have a solution to that.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
Some definitions for you, which may prove helpful -
Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent Praise and honour for the non-participants
I have that on my work website.
“Letters for The Captain may be posted here”
Sign hung on the boarding gangway for HMS Devastation.
It was poetry, almost, that Reid (who aggressively opposed everything to do with HMS Captain) was forced to resign and was nearly replaced by Laird - who ran the shipyard that screwed up building HMS Captain..
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
"Labour are absolutely gunning for the seat, and will have no lack of activists in the area."
This would be a very silly thing for Labour to do. These activists should be spending their time in Tory-held seats.
Brighton has a lot of Labour activists, many of whom may not be able to travel away very often - and the other two Brighton seats are already Labour. It's fairly sensible if those people would otherwise not be out canvassing at all.
Ridding us of the scum that accretes around the Green Party will be one of the indisputable benefits of a Labour government. Ask anyone in Scotland how poisonous they can be.
The Scottish Greens are a different party to the English Greens.
I see the word scum is yet again acceptable in certain contexts.
What is wrong with the word “scum”? It describes a gathering of pollution or filth that accumulates on polluted water or other materials indicating the presence of that pollutant. I can’t think of a better metaphor.
Not sure about using the word "scum" but can understand the sense of frustration behind it.
What I find extraordinary is the utter contrast in sentiment between the speech of Robert Habeck, the German vice-chancellor, who is a Green, and the grotesque utterances of our homegrown Greens here in Scotland and across the UK.
The difference between @DavidL and Rayner* is that she used “scum” to describe all members of the Tory party. He referred to “the scum that accretes around the edges of the Green Party”.
It’s not a nice term, but there’s a difference between a collective description for someone in a legitimate political party and a negative phrase to describe individuals who have unsavoury beliefs (and they accrete around all political parties)
On topic, given the level of moonbattery and incompetence displayed by the Scottish Greens, I don't understand why anyone would give the Greens a vote.
Do we need more moonbattery and incompetence? If so, the Tories are the party for you.
On topic, given the level of moonbattery and incompetence displayed by the Scottish Greens, I don't understand why anyone would give the Greens a vote.
Do we need more moonbattery and incompetence? If so, the Tories are the party for you.
People want left and right options for moonbattery.
The Union Flag was taken down from the Cenotaph. Perhaps like the pictures of hostages it's seen as too provocative.
Only because all the flags are taken away this week every year to be cleaned before next week's ceremonies.
Mind you that's because I saw the Metropolitan Police tweet rather than the right wing muppet's post that got 400,000 views compare to the Met Police's 10,000 views.
Are you sure it's true?
Still sad that it's surrounded by fencing.
Yes because I'm not an idiot taken in by false news that happens to match my prejudices..
Is it prejudiced to think public monuments might be defaced? Or just common sense since it happens quite often.
The protesters are planning to avoid the Cenotaph by marching from Trafalgar Square to the US Embassy. They are also deliberately starting in the afternoon so as to not disturb any 1100 silence observances.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
The evidence that financial factors incentivise child-rearing is mixed at best.
But even if it's true, we don't need yet more handouts. We need to let the private sector build enough decent quality family sized homes so the average family can afford one. That would do more to reduce the cost and stress of child rearing than any realistic amount of family allowances would.
They don't do it through family allowance. They do it through each child have a tax allowance like the adults. At least for the first 2.
And I have to say if you think housing costs, even at a much reduced rate, are the limit of costs involved with raising kids then I suspect you don't have any.
Just look at childcare costs. The average UK monthly mortgage costs as of March 2022 were £760 a month. The average child care costs at the same time were £940 a month.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
Collapsing the population is the solution to the housing shortage.
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
I thought that chubby skinheads peeing on war memorials was the start of the end times?
No wait, that was the “taking the knee demos”
Dont worry, the Woke Trans Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs will eat… *EVERYONE*
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
The evidence that financial factors incentivise child-rearing is mixed at best.
But even if it's true, we don't need yet more handouts. We need to let the private sector build enough decent quality family sized homes so the average family can afford one. That would do more to reduce the cost and stress of child rearing than any realistic amount of family allowances would.
They don't do it through family allowance. They do it through each child have a tax allowance like the adults. At least for the first 2.
And I have to say if you think housing costs, even at a much reduced rate, are the limit of costs involved with raising kids then I suspect you don't have any.
Just look at childcare costs. The average UK monthly mortgage costs as of March 2022 were £760 a month. The average child care costs at the same time were £940 a month.
If fewer women worked after having children and more were full time mothers they wouldn't need to worry about childcare costs, the husband would be the wage earner and there could be increased child benefit given direct to the mother
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
Dickhead out and about in London on a Saturday night. Who could have possibly anticipated that?
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
25000 christian wanted to march through north London and it was turned down. Perhaps they are in negotiations over other marches. Not seen anything yet.
And I won't soon forget the comment by a police officer to the Campaign Against Antisemitism's bus with pictures of the hostages on it 'Get out of central London.'
It wasn't 'turned down', the marchers decided to cancel it themselves after talking to the cops.
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
Some protestors have at least been arrested after displaying placards 'inciting hatred'
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
Collapsing the population is the solution to the housing shortage.
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
The police are going to end up being armed in London, which will only make everything worse than it is now.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
25000 christian wanted to march through north London and it was turned down. Perhaps they are in negotiations over other marches. Not seen anything yet.
And I won't soon forget the comment by a police officer to the Campaign Against Antisemitism's bus with pictures of the hostages on it 'Get out of central London.'
It wasn't 'turned down', the marchers decided to cancel it themselves after talking to the cops.
Ah I see. I wonder what could have changed their minds?
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
Maximum danger now for Labour.
If this all gets totally out of control we could end up having a snap 'law and order' election as Sunak sniffs a chance.
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
Maximum danger now for Labour.
If this all gets totally out of control we could end up having a snap 'law and order' election as Sunak sniffs a chance.
What is your polling evidence that any of this is hurting Starmer?
If anything polls have moved in his favour over the last month.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
25000 christian wanted to march through north London and it was turned down. Perhaps they are in negotiations over other marches. Not seen anything yet.
And I won't soon forget the comment by a police officer to the Campaign Against Antisemitism's bus with pictures of the hostages on it 'Get out of central London.'
It wasn't 'turned down', the marchers decided to cancel it themselves after talking to the cops.
Ah I see. I wonder what could have changed their minds?
I'd imagine the cops try to dissuade anyone planning a demo at the best of times, let alone in the current atmosphere. If people feel strongly about it or aren't bothered about any aggro I guess they push ahead.
Wimping out then playing the martyr about being 'silenced' seems very on point for a certain section of the political spectrum.
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
They occupied and shut down Charing Cross station for nearly four hours today, police said afterwards no arrests were made. Critical error.
If people want to protest in Trafalgar Square that is their right, but not arresting people for shutting down critical transport hubs (as the law empowers the police to do) will only embolden this lot further and lead to more actions such as this.
Police seem to be about as much use as a fart in a lift at this point.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
We subsidise parents far too much already.
We are collapsing the population so much that we need to borrow other people’s children to keep things going.
Collapsing the population is the solution to the housing shortage.
Well, yes, as a numerical solution that would work, but as a solution to any problem, reducing the population is a very slow way to solve any problem, because even with a severe demographic crisis the population will shrink relatively slowly compared to other solutions (like building more houses, or renewable sources of electricity), unless you start culling people in large numbers.
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
Maximum danger now for Labour.
If this all gets totally out of control we could end up having a snap 'law and order' election as Sunak sniffs a chance.
What is your polling evidence that any of this is hurting Starmer?
If anything polls have moved in his favour over the last month.
Yes, the average Labour lead has just reached 20% for the first time.
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
The evidence that financial factors incentivise child-rearing is mixed at best.
But even if it's true, we don't need yet more handouts. We need to let the private sector build enough decent quality family sized homes so the average family can afford one. That would do more to reduce the cost and stress of child rearing than any realistic amount of family allowances would.
They don't do it through family allowance. They do it through each child have a tax allowance like the adults. At least for the first 2.
And I have to say if you think housing costs, even at a much reduced rate, are the limit of costs involved with raising kids then I suspect you don't have any.
Just look at childcare costs. The average UK monthly mortgage costs as of March 2022 were £760 a month. The average child care costs at the same time were £940 a month.
Tell me about it, I have an 18 month old At least you get the equivalent of MIRAS on your kid(s) though; and the local comp is freemuch less expensive than nursery once they get to that age !
... Anyone who goes on the march is responsible for their own views, not those around them.
"present but not involved"?
I vividly remember in my enthusiastic youth attending an anti capitalist demo in London. I was thoroughly surprised to see this very organised group of people, almost all men, flying black and red flags and with faces hidden. I had no idea I had bumbled across the really quite violent black bloc.
Being on the same march as them did not make me an anarchist, nor a criminal when they started smashing in bank windows.
Any big political statement will be broad brush and contain contradictions throughout.
We might as well argue that anyone who stays away from the protest is enabling genocide against Gazan children. It’s transparent nonsense.
Fair point, but stated baldly it shows the strain. Let's reify it to a doctrine: the "MaxH doctrine" or the "The individual responsibility doctrine" thus:
"The individual responsibility doctrine:any individual in an activity cannot be held responsible for any other individuals in that activity, nor for the group or groups in that activity, and vice versa"
Sorry for the slow reply - yeah I think the joint enterprise point is instructive in trying to get beyond sweeping judgements on this.
From your link: intended to encourage or assist them to commit the offence. This is a key point for me. Full disclosure-I went to the protest in central Bristol earlier today (with a healthy dose of trepidation but also with a quote from a Palestinian journalist in my ears that turning on the TV and seeing protest marches across the world made them feel less alone).
At the protest almost the first thing we heard was a solitary member of the crowd with a microphone trying to start a chant of ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’. The heartening thing was that no one joined in. Nevertheless I didn’t challenge his antisemitism (which I regret, also that I didn’t film it to send to the police) nor did others around me.
I think anyone joining in a chant like that is then responsible for the reprehensible views that statement encodes, as they are ‘encouraging’ the offender as per joint enterprise. But someone who is nearby but chooses not to participate in that chant is not responsible for the views of that protestor. (I do think it is incumbent on mpeople nearby to challenge it, but that’s a different moral point in my view).
Part of the challenge is that the bad actors will use evidence of the mass marchers - especially in the Middle East - more propaganda regardless of the motives of the individual
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
25000 christian wanted to march through north London and it was turned down. Perhaps they are in negotiations over other marches. Not seen anything yet.
And I won't soon forget the comment by a police officer to the Campaign Against Antisemitism's bus with pictures of the hostages on it 'Get out of central London.'
It wasn't 'turned down', the marchers decided to cancel it themselves after talking to the cops.
Ah I see. I wonder what could have changed their minds?
I'd imagine the cops try to dissuade anyone planning a demo at the best of times, let alone in the current atmosphere. If people feel strongly about it or aren't bothered about any aggro I guess they push ahead.
Wimping out then playing the martyr about being 'silenced' seems very on point for a certain section of the political spectrum.
Actually, my experience with actually organising demos is not that - admittedly years ago. The police get the forms out with a kind of “Three hours till the pub” attitude. They never said to me or others don’t.
They get a bit world weary explaining to the naive that your demo may suffer an infestation of Black Blok, or Nazis or whatever, but it’s all rather on-your-head-be-it.
On the "many of them foreign" bit. She's clearly right. But. In what world is choosing to live in a tent in a major city "a lifestyle choice?" Who? Apart from the severely mentally ill would choose to do that? Why would they? Once again. Focusing on the wrong part of the speech.
The daily mail regularly reports on people from Eastern Europe who can make more from begging in London than from manual labour in Romania
I suspect they are not representative but they would count as a “lifestyle choice”
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
The big complication then is housing costs as they can vary so much in different areas and for different people.
One of the issues I've been noticing is HA's. They've been bumping the rents up to the maximum covered by the housing component of UC.
It's now far more expensive to live in HA property up here than privately. (I live in one of the cheapest areas of the UK).
The housing component of UC is a bung to landlords. Whether they be private landlords, or HA landlords.
That people can use UC to pay for rent and someone else's mortgage, but not their own, is utter madness. Especially when their own would be normally cheaper.
But why should they get a free option on a rise in house prices?
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
Maximum danger now for Labour.
If this all gets totally out of control we could end up having a snap 'law and order' election as Sunak sniffs a chance.
What is your polling evidence that any of this is hurting Starmer?
If anything polls have moved in his favour over the last month.
Yes, the average Labour lead has just reached 20% for the first time.
The IDF are sending XL Bully type mega-dogs down the Hamas tunnels to eat the terrorists. Some have cameras attached
Do they have guns?
The tunnels look pitch black - I guess coz all the power has gone
In my nightmares there aren't many as scary as a XL Bully suddenly coming down a totally darkened tunnel and then commencing to eat my face. In the dark
How does the dog differentiate between a Hamas fighter and a hostage?
Seriously, it's perfectly possible these dogs have been trained to differentiate between captors and captives. Police dogs have been known to arrive at the scene of a crime and pick up the exact scent of the offender, even though dozens of other people have been passing by. It's quite uncanny.
Why wouldn't Hamas simply shoot the dogs?
They sneak up in the dark, and quietly, judging by the vids. Looks like the cameras attached to the dogs use some kind of infra-red tech
What a horrible way to die for a jihadi, down in a pitch black tunnel chewed up by a massive Bully XL that's been starved and given ephedrine and vodka. lol
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
Maximum danger now for Labour.
If this all gets totally out of control we could end up having a snap 'law and order' election as Sunak sniffs a chance.
What is your polling evidence that any of this is hurting Starmer?
If anything polls have moved in his favour over the last month.
Yes, the average Labour lead has just reached 20% for the first time.
It was 30% during the glory days of the Truss
True. I was just thinking of since Sunak became leader.
The IDF are sending XL Bully type mega-dogs down the Hamas tunnels to eat the terrorists. Some have cameras attached
Do they have guns?
The tunnels look pitch black - I guess coz all the power has gone
In my nightmares there aren't many as scary as a XL Bully suddenly coming down a totally darkened tunnel and then commencing to eat my face. In the dark
How does the dog differentiate between a Hamas fighter and a hostage?
Seriously, it's perfectly possible these dogs have been trained to differentiate between captors and captives. Police dogs have been known to arrive at the scene of a crime and pick up the exact scent of the offender, even though dozens of other people have been passing by. It's quite uncanny.
Why wouldn't Hamas simply shoot the dogs?
Dogs are highly effective and used by special forces around the world. Used in the Bin Laden raid etc, even wear goggles to protect their eyes when getting into helicopters.
My extensive experience of video games, from Rome Total War to Call of Duty, also supports this.
The IDF are sending XL Bully type mega-dogs down the Hamas tunnels to eat the terrorists. Some have cameras attached
Do they have guns?
The tunnels look pitch black - I guess coz all the power has gone
In my nightmares there aren't many as scary as a XL Bully suddenly coming down a totally darkened tunnel and then commencing to eat my face. In the dark
How does the dog differentiate between a Hamas fighter and a hostage?
Seriously, it's perfectly possible these dogs have been trained to differentiate between captors and captives. Police dogs have been known to arrive at the scene of a crime and pick up the exact scent of the offender, even though dozens of other people have been passing by. It's quite uncanny.
Why wouldn't Hamas simply shoot the dogs?
Dogs are highly effective and used by special forces around the world. Used in the Bin Laden raid etc, even wear goggles to protect their eyes when getting into helicopters.
My extensive experience of video games, from Rome Total War to Call of Duty, also supports this.
Consul Marcus Pomponius Matho has entered the chat, back from a vacation in Sardinia
The IDF are sending XL Bully type mega-dogs down the Hamas tunnels to eat the terrorists. Some have cameras attached
Do they have guns?
The tunnels look pitch black - I guess coz all the power has gone
In my nightmares there aren't many as scary as a XL Bully suddenly coming down a totally darkened tunnel and then commencing to eat my face. In the dark
How does the dog differentiate between a Hamas fighter and a hostage?
Seriously, it's perfectly possible these dogs have been trained to differentiate between captors and captives. Police dogs have been known to arrive at the scene of a crime and pick up the exact scent of the offender, even though dozens of other people have been passing by. It's quite uncanny.
Why wouldn't Hamas simply shoot the dogs?
Dogs are highly effective and used by special forces around the world. Used in the Bin Laden raid etc, even wear goggles to protect their eyes when getting into helicopters.
My extensive experience of video games, from Rome Total War to Call of Duty, also supports this.
But do these dogs have fricking laser beams on their heads?
Not sure if it's been commented on, but Braverman's tweet included: We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice. Many of then from abroad, indeed. That's a disgraceful, deliberate dog whistle to the far right. I don't imagine Braverman has any data at all to prove that many of the 'tent homeless' are from abroad. She's made it up.
Sunak should sack her. He won't, of course.
Many of them are - I know this because I have friends who have, and still do, volunteer for homeless charities, shelters, and street outreach, and I can assure you this is absolutely the case.
I suspect the fact it's Braverman saying it will simply blind you to any sensible engagement on this, but it shouldn't.
Rather than anecdote, do you have any actual data? Because anecdotally, where I live there's a lot of 'tent people' and they're all true-born Brits, including a fair number of ex-army PTSD folk.
So, like I said, if Braverman is correct I'd like to see some actual data rather than your anecdote.
I did a little volunteering for a homeless charity in London back in the early 90s, and the issues faced by the homeless were as varied as the people themselves. Yes, there were the usual drinks/drugs issues for some/many, but also histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, bad families, job losses, various addictions, financial issues, relationship breakdowns, bad luck, and sadly, stupidity. I wasn't a qualified counselor so could not give advice, but I did listen, and their stories varied from tragic to humorous. Some seemed to have escape routes (or claimed to) that they were too proud/ashamed to take. I've little doubt that some of the stories I were told were fiction, or sob stories; others seemed far too genuine.
It struck me (and still does) that homelessness is a massively complex issue, and one that probably needs interventions at an individual level to get anywhere near 'solving'. permanently for any individual.
But I am sure that taking away tents, if that is what is proposed, is a *really* bad and crass idea. That's not about helping the homeless; it's about hurting them.
I see similar working with the local food bank. In spite of the apparent safety net which the post war settlement was supposed to provide there are a horrible number of people falling through the gaps and ending up with absolutely nothing. Our whole social security system is failing because it is being used as a bribe for certain sections of society (which vary depending on which party you are talking about) rather than actualy working to help those in genuine dire need - and there are an increasing number of those year on year.
And Universal Credit is being used as a subsidy for those in full time work on low pay and facing high rents. Often working for the government and living in Council accommodation.
This is one of tghe reasons I think a proper minimum/living wage is such a good idea. Currently we have a stuation where employers can get away with paying people less than they can live on and expect the tax payer to make up the difference. It is effectively the tax payer subsiding company pay rolls.
Though its personal circumstances and welfare that are the issue, not companies.
A full-time childless couple on current minimum wage already isn't (AFAIK) entitled to any support.
A single parent working sixteen hours per week supporting multiple children is never going to earn enough on minimum wage to pay their bills.
So there will always need to be some sort of system to exist. That's why I prefer a negative income tax (aka UBI) with a flat rate then so we don't get cliff-edge skyscraper tax rates that discourage work.
To quote one of Smithson junior's excellent youtube presentations, what we actually need is a French system where having kids puts you at a financial advantage rather than ours where you are defintely at a disadvantage.
The evidence that financial factors incentivise child-rearing is mixed at best.
But even if it's true, we don't need yet more handouts. We need to let the private sector build enough decent quality family sized homes so the average family can afford one. That would do more to reduce the cost and stress of child rearing than any realistic amount of family allowances would.
They don't do it through family allowance. They do it through each child have a tax allowance like the adults. At least for the first 2.
And I have to say if you think housing costs, even at a much reduced rate, are the limit of costs involved with raising kids then I suspect you don't have any.
Just look at childcare costs. The average UK monthly mortgage costs as of March 2022 were £760 a month. The average child care costs at the same time were £940 a month.
If fewer women worked after having children and more were full time mothers they wouldn't need to worry about childcare costs, the husband would be the wage earner and there could be increased child benefit given direct to the mother
On minimum wage, working 37.5 hours a week the husband would take home £330 a week after tax and NI. I am not convniced that is enough to support a family of 3 without support. Hence the need to increase the minimum/living wage. Otherwise all we are doing is subsidising companies wage costs.
So another day goes by with lots of Jew hate on the streets of London and pb's most civically minded people are of course talking about..... Braverman and possible plans for the homeless. Perfectly noteworthy but your blindspot has been noted - again.
25000 christian wanted to march through north London and it was turned down. Perhaps they are in negotiations over other marches. Not seen anything yet.
And I won't soon forget the comment by a police officer to the Campaign Against Antisemitism's bus with pictures of the hostages on it 'Get out of central London.'
It wasn't 'turned down', the marchers decided to cancel it themselves after talking to the cops.
The old “cancel it yourselves or we will ban it” gambit…
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
Maximum danger now for Labour.
If this all gets totally out of control we could end up having a snap 'law and order' election as Sunak sniffs a chance.
What is your polling evidence that any of this is hurting Starmer?
If anything polls have moved in his favour over the last month.
Yes, the average Labour lead has just reached 20% for the first time.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
Isn't it because one law may contradict another, so a judge needs to examine the alleged conflict and determine a way forward.
I get that. But the entire process seems, to my admittedly lazy and amateur eye, to have gone way beyond that, where almost any legislation can be semi-permanently paused or perverted by civil legal protestations
The country wants these dogs banned ASAP. Polls show overwhelming support. Two more people seriously injured in hospital today. JUST BAN THEM
I’m writing a header on this. We are a society that worships process. If this doesn’t work, we add more process. Even if the process is the problem.
The actual end is lost in the 500 pages reports that no one reads.
Some definitions for you, which may prove helpful -
Amazingly, there is a Go Fund Me account set up to pay for a serious legal challenge to HMG's XL Bully legislation, and it has already made £60k, so they really are gonna try and scupper it
The government should tell these hell-hound loving imbeciles to go jump in a Hamas tunnel. Ban these fecking monsters, now
I'm slightly worried about how dog-obsessed people in this country seem to have become recently. In my street it used to be something like 33% dogs, 33% cats, 33% neither. Now it feels like it's 70% dogs, 10% cats, 20% neither.
There are far too many dogs, if you ask me.
You can't go for a country walk now without being pestered by one off the lead.
Why do we even allow civil judicial review of laws proposed and passed by a majority of MPs?
We are a democracy. If the democracy wills a law, through parliament, it should be enacted. I am tired of this endless endless process of delay, dither, review, revise, delay
It leads to so many bad outcomes for the UK, from national infra disasters like HS2 right down to our inability to deport foreign psycho-killers
If Starmer gets a big enough majority, perhaps he might do something about this. I I know it is monumentally unlikely - Starmer is a lawyer so he probably loves all this lawyering - but it is good to hope
He will do precisely nothing about it, both for the reasons you cite, and the fact he hasn't got an original bone in his body.
He's relying on a million different people hopecasting onto him - he doesn't care what for or why so long as they vote for him.
Comments
https://twitter.com/NationalIndNews/status/1718672339984863290?t=UcFr1JVcmEZ4qdZNWYKx3w&s=19
My hope is that when the IDF has done what it has to do, that the Israeli public has the collective sense to expel Netanyahu and his cohorts from power and bring in a new team. It will be the only way forward.
... we are running out of sailors. We aren't recruiting enough sailors to man the ships. Since the number of ships is three support vessels, two destroyers, 1.5 aircraft carriers and HMS Bloody Victory, you'd think they'd manage to do this, but no, they done fucked up. Again.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-failing-to-get-enough-recruits-into-basic-training/
Look I know you're all consumed with grave matters of the world and principle, but can we all focus for the moment that the current incarnation of the Conservative Party just doesn't know how to run the country. At all. They blew their wad with Truss and now they're just flailing around ("BAN SMOKING") like the Haribo cops trying to do heart surgery. Will somebody please put these deranged fuckers out of office so that they can go do their adulting GCSEs and come back when they can put a hammer to a nail? Because the country is falling apart.
Nonetheless, you are correct that people don't stop and make a good process a lot of the time, or even think about what the aim of the process is, they just tweak and adjust and add layers of complexity in response to unfocused thoughts coming from a dozen competing directions, until you have a dog's breakfast, which we then expect officials to make work perfectly and others to use perfectly.
We need to be a lot smarter about the basic point of a lot of things.
So guessing that's because there's ~15 weeks of holidays but the statutory allowance is 5.6 weeks so the pro-rate is to cover the rest of the holidays that haven't been worked for otherwise?
Sort of makes sense, though why not work during the summer holidays?
When I was a student I worked at McDonalds during the holidays, not trying to be disrespectful but if you're working not as a professional teacher but as an assistant who is not qualified, why not pick up a summer job that would pay the same while you're not working over the summer?
https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-cynics-dictionary/
And I won't soon forget the comment by a police officer to the Campaign Against Antisemitism's bus with pictures of the hostages on it 'Get out of central London.'
It was informally binding, in that the public punished those they felt obstructed it, which is perfectly reasonable though.
What do you want me to do, sign a pledge?
Ah, my coat. So kind.
Not that I regard all recommendations as sacred, some will always be nonsense.
Even then all but one of them still lasted longer than Truss did.
The "Plus" is basically an admission that AV is crap.
Aiui, the elected PM would still sit under a ceremonial president with veto rights over cabinet appointments below PM level (until the next constitutional crisis no doubt).
There's also anti- technocratic measures - the PM must be in parliament, and a VoNC / coalition breakdown spirals pretty quickly into an automatic GE for both PM and parliament.
Excuse me if I don't share it.
1) Phases of a project
Enthusiasm
Disillusionment
Panic
Search for the guilty
Punishment of the innocent
Praise and honour for the non-participants
2) The Plan
The Plan
In the beginning, there was a plan,
And then came the assumptions,
And the assumptions were without form,
And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers,
And they spoke among themselves saying,
"It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said,
"It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying,
"It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong,
Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying,
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another,
"It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them,
"It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him,
"This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor
Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan
And saw that it was good,
And the Plan became Policy.
And so, shit happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandra_Mussolini
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="allesandra+mussolini"
Not compound the problem by creating other shortages.
"North Korea is a land of hunger, torture and indoctrination. It’s crushed under a cult of personality so punitive that citizens can be imprisoned if inspectors find any dust on the household portrait of supreme leader Kim Jong Un. Yet an 80-year-old grandmother who’s one of the central figures in the documentary “Beyond Utopia” is convinced it’s the best country on earth. A lifetime of brainwashing has her praising the Kim dynasty even as she and her family flee what they fear it’s going to do to them."
source$:https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/2023/11/01/beyond-utopia-movie-review/
(Some doctors in the group that fixed my cataracts a few years ago voluntarily go to North Korea fromtime to time to fix eyes there. Why? I'll give you hint: For both operations, the doctors who did my eyes asked me if they could pray before the operations; naturally I said yes.)
I want sustainable growth.
But, well, focus groups are more impressed by politicians promising to create a law, than simply promising to do something.
The same may be true in many other countrie,s including the UK: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_2-Ideal-actual-number-children.pdf
Sign hung on the boarding gangway for HMS Devastation.
It was poetry, almost, that Reid (who aggressively opposed everything to do with HMS Captain) was forced to resign and was nearly replaced by Laird - who ran the shipyard that screwed up building HMS Captain..
"Man calls police his “slaves” before firework is launched at police."
https://x.com/IncMonocle/status/1720880388912869602?s=20
The police are regarded with utter contempt by these protestors, they laugh at the police, precisely because the police do their bidding. The police do everything possible to protect these pro-Hamas guys, while arresting and dispersing anyone who opposes
This is the endpoint of multiculi policing which overly indulges Islam and Islamists
It’s not a nice term, but there’s a difference between a collective description for someone in a legitimate political party and a negative phrase to describe individuals who have unsavoury beliefs (and they accrete around all political parties)
* well, one difference anyway
Do we need more moonbattery and incompetence? If so, the Tories are the party for you.
The post above says Trafalgar Square to the US embassy
And I have to say if you think housing costs, even at a much reduced rate, are the limit of costs involved with raising kids then I suspect you don't have any.
Just look at childcare costs. The average UK monthly mortgage costs as of March 2022 were £760 a month. The average child care costs at the same time were £940 a month.
There's not a world for anyone
Nobody laughed, nobody cried
World's at an end
Everyone has died
Forever... Amen
Amen
Amen
Few with children would wish them gone, but there are always folk who wanted more, or some at all. Hence the net position is more than they had.
No wait, that was the “taking the knee demos”
Dont worry, the Woke Trans Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs will eat… *EVERYONE*
https://www.gbnews.com/news/palestine-protests-three-arrested-metropolitan-police-incite-hatred
If this all gets totally out of control we could end up having a snap 'law and order' election as Sunak sniffs a chance.
If anything polls have moved in his favour over the last month.
Wimping out then playing the martyr about being 'silenced' seems very on point for a certain section of the political spectrum.
If people want to protest in Trafalgar Square that is their right, but not arresting people for shutting down critical transport hubs (as the law empowers the police to do) will only embolden this lot further and lead to more actions such as this.
Police seem to be about as much use as a fart in a lift at this point.
At least you get the equivalent of MIRAS on your kid(s) though; and the local comp is free much less expensive than nursery once they get to that age !
So you are indirectly aiding the evil doers
They get a bit world weary explaining to the naive that your demo may suffer an infestation of Black Blok, or Nazis or whatever, but it’s all rather on-your-head-be-it.
I suspect they are not representative but they would count as a “lifestyle choice”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/04/politics/muslim-americans-biden-michigan/index.html
My extensive experience of video games, from Rome Total War to Call of Duty, also supports this.
First time I’ve consciously listened to anything he wrote.
Amazing music.
That’s both funny but depressing at the same time.
You can't go for a country walk now without being pestered by one off the lead.
He's relying on a million different people hopecasting onto him - he doesn't care what for or why so long as they vote for him.