An interesting idea from Hunt. Cunningly, it conveys the impression that most benefit claimants are skiving, whereas of course they are mostly: 1. Retired (12.5m), 2. Disabled or sick (2.2m), 3. Working but in low pay (2.1m)
Anyhow, Hunt's idea seems to be concentrating on the 300,000 who fail to get a job after 18 months. For many of them HMG finding them a work placement would be potentially helpful.
I just wonder where they are going to find willing employers to offer these placements; quite a lot of these long-term UC claimants no sensible employer would offer a job too, in my experience.
This is also always the problem with the policy Labour that comes around every year or so, where they promise a guaranteed job to all long-term unemployed....
And when they ban zero-hours, it will make it worse, as employers can't trial people for a few months with no obligation.
I agree, it's a tough one. Wish I knew the answer.
Fewer drugs on the street would help massively imho. So many of these 'unemployable' people seem to have been screwed up by drugs.
One of the answers which was right (and has got messed up) is that taking a job doesn't negatively effect your benefits i.e. so if you try getting back into work and you aren't worse off.
Re Zero Hours, my solution has always been they are fine with caveats, in fact there are people who really like them. The number one issue has been solved which was banning exclusivity. The next reform I would make is sure you can have people on zero hours, but if you employ them for more than x months, you are legally bound to offer them a job with guaranteed hours.
That still gives employers flexibility during busy times or to trial people, but also stops businesses totally built on the labour of ZHCs workers.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Reaching the top of Scafell Pike a few years ago my phone pinged with a message 'Welcome to the Isle of Man', together with a list of eye-watering roaming charges. So I switched it off. Fortunately there was no need to call out Mountain Rescue on the way back to the Old Dungeon Ghyll. People living on the Kent coast were occasionally bothered by French roaming charges before the EU abolished them and maybe they are again thanks to Brexit?
Good grief. The obsession of those on the right with 'woke' whatever that is, is truly something to behold.
It's akin to McCarthy's 'reds under the bed' or the C17th fear of 'popery'.
Perhaps, but no worse than lefties who claim that all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish" rather than practical people who might notice that Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall..
1. I don't see many any lefties on here claiming that 'all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish"' but I see a lots of PB righties banging on about 'woke',
2. 'Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall' Well, it's a view. But I think when the electorate consider the period 1997 to 2010 (29.5% real GDP growth) with 2010 to 2023 (21.6% real GDP growth) they might conclude the whelk stall was rather better run under Labour.
@Andy_JS presents as a very reasonable, thoughtful man, whose views are various and hard to pin to a mast. Yet when I asked him what his worldview was he said: anti-woke. I thought that a very odd position. I'm not particularly woke, but to define one's entire worldview as 'anti-woke' seems a narrow outlook at best.
Did you ask him to define the 'woke' he was anti?
My guess is it will consist of a series of the most extreme, and rare, examples of stupidity that are so far round the political horseshoe as to be back on the other side. The sort of nonsense that no sane person supports and certainly not people like myself, yet I am often classed as 'woke' here on PB.
As I said earlier, I find the whole 'woke' obsession rather curious and slightly disturbing.
Since some of you here are fond of the famous Gerald the Gorilla sketch, I thought I'd share this bit of rot I came across while searching for a link to the sketch to send to a friend who'd never seen it. It is, at last count, the third highest search result in Google for the sketch:
TL;DR, it features a man dressed as a gorilla, which it argues is a metaphor for black people, and when you show a man in a gorilla suit it is *always* a metaphor for black people, whether intended or not.
The article references critical race theory numerous times, as well as their 'outrage' at the sketch.
I would politely suggest that anyone who sees black people whenever they see a gorilla might be a tad racist themselves, and to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a gorilla is just a gorilla.
Never mind the fact that Not the Nine O'Clock News was also responsible for the Constable Savage sketch, a pretty searing indictment of the institutional racism of the police at the time.
But that is the woke mind virus. *Everything* must be viewed through the lens of critical race theory, which is really just Habermas's idea of power structures rewritten to be about the colour of your skin. Nothing else matters. Just victim and victimiser. A binary worldview where one is either a victim or not based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege".
It's worth noting that the link I shared is also hawking diversity and inclusion training courses.
To your point: Why are people so obsessed with woke? Because it's a parasitical entity spreading throughout schools, offices and governmental institutions of the land. It is a cancer that is spreading and metastasising, the end result of which as we are currently seeing is the rise of antisemitism and the "othering" of Jews, as pointed out by Bari Weiss:
"Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading. Little wonder people are so obsessed with the spread.
I appreciate the fulsome answer, thanks. Clearly the idea that Gerald the Gorilla is racist is nonsense. I suggest it would be an extreme view, not shared by very many at all.
Should it be resisted? Yes. Does it mean "Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading? Does it bollocks.
Firstly, if this example is your definition of 'woke' then none of us lefties on here are woke. OTOH if we PB lefties are all woke, your example or errant nonsense is not woke, it's an extreme view held by a very small minority.
[George] Santos told the following lies about his background during his campaign: He was a successful businessman, grandson of Holocaust survivors, graduated from Baruch College, had an MBA from NYU, worked for Citi Group and Goldman Sachs, owned multiple properties, was the beneficiary of a trust worth millions, and that his mother died as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attack. https://www.meidastouch.com/news/ethics-committee-findings-spell-doom-for-george-santos
Honestly, he should be a leading contender for the Presidential nomination based on this report, at least he's not old!
OnlyFans is an online vehicle whereby poor people extract money from the rich by pretending to offer sexual services. Sephora is a beauty product line that includes makeup, skincare, stuff like that.
So basically he cleansed his skin to be nice and fresh, and then wanked himself stupid. I assume he also used the funds to pay for the tissues, but that's speculation on my part. And ejaculation on his pa[That's enough - Ed]
An interesting idea from Hunt. Cunningly, it conveys the impression that most benefit claimants are skiving, whereas of course they are mostly: 1. Retired (12.5m), 2. Disabled or sick (2.2m), 3. Working but in low pay (2.1m)
Anyhow, Hunt's idea seems to be concentrating on the 300,000 who fail to get a job after 18 months. For many of them HMG finding them a work placement would be potentially helpful.
I just wonder where they are going to find willing employers to offer these placements; quite a lot of these long-term UC claimants no sensible employer would offer a job too, in my experience.
Everybody to be assigned a job. Massive government expenditure to keep the economy going. State control of minutiae... oh god, why don't we just go full Soviet and get it over with? At least the USSR built houses and put people in orbit. We can't even get a Reliant Robin into LEO.
(All together now. The Government literally does not know how to run a country. Not in a partisan or silly way. They just don't know. They are pressing buttons at random at this point.)
I was rather wondering whether Hunt would create government jobs to provide these placements. Not sure that will save the public purse much though.
An interesting idea from Hunt. Cunningly, it conveys the impression that most benefit claimants are skiving, whereas of course they are mostly: 1. Retired (12.5m), 2. Disabled or sick (2.2m), 3. Working but in low pay (2.1m)
Anyhow, Hunt's idea seems to be concentrating on the 300,000 who fail to get a job after 18 months. For many of them HMG finding them a work placement would be potentially helpful.
I just wonder where they are going to find willing employers to offer these placements; quite a lot of these long-term UC claimants no sensible employer would offer a job too, in my experience.
Everybody to be assigned a job. Massive government expenditure to keep the economy going. State control of minutiae... oh god, why don't we just go full Soviet and get it over with? At least the USSR built houses and put people in orbit. We can't even get a Reliant Robin into LEO.
(All together now. The Government literally does not know how to run a country. Not in a partisan or silly way. They just don't know. They are pressing buttons at random at this point.)
I was rather wondering whether Hunt would create government jobs to provide these placements. Not sure that will save the public purse much though.
Tower Hamlets students now marching to @rushanaraali’s office after she shamefully refused to vote for a ceasefire last night. #SchoolStrikeForPalestine #FreePalestine 🇵🇸 #CeasefireNOW Tower Hamlets, who would have thought it?
One obvious conclusion: a parallel society is in operation in East London, openly defying the laws & norms that bind the rest of us. Children being given time off to attend a protest could not happen without the assent of headteachers, teachers, parents, & the local bureaucracy.
Have people forgotten when kids started following Greta and doing mass walkouts to highlight climate change?
Genuinely I had.
I never really got the Greta love. Being kind, sure, people like a charismatic performer, and being unkind people also like articulate and passionate child preachers as a kind of circus act too, and I cannot fault the effectiveness of advancing her messaging, but was any of it really that amazing?
I think it is something to be proud of that we live in a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, as MLK put it. I think Yousef is Yousless for a whole range of reasons but his racial background is quite irrelevant and never seems to get a mention, except when his wife's family were at risk in Gaza when he got pretty universal sympathy. I think its great we live in a country like that and we don't often give ourselves enough credit for it.
i agree, heartily, but this is where you ignore Wokeness at your peril
Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly
That is one reason Wokeness is SO insidious and poisonous. it pains me that bright people like you cannot see the danger of this
That is how I always understood Wokeness. But it seems to have expanded in meaning massively so that now it has become meaningless.
No, Woke exists and we all know it
The best comparison is the term “Fascism”. It’s notoriously hard to define fascism in a couple of sentences - even Mussolini struggled! - but we all know what it is. Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain, Benito’s Italy. I’d add iran under the ayatollahs and Gaza under Hamas, and several other Islamic examples. Islamofascism is real. Imperial Japan was fascist, too
But in the meantime lefties have expanded fascism to mean “everything I don’t like”, perhaps unhelpfully, but that doesn’t mean fascism does not exist. It does, Likewise Wokeness. It is a nebulous but powerful ideology and it is absolutely obsessed with racial and sexual identity, definitely including skin colour
Woke (your definition) doesn't by itself explain how the world works, it just provides insights into it, some of them quite useful. It's like most socioeconomic type theories in this respect. You shouldn't swallow it whole or get so mad at it that your face explodes.
Woke is an anglosphere thing. Not a world thing.
Yep, like many trains of thought (and indeed global credit crunches) it started in America.
Its one of those amazing things that the UK Left want to import all the shit ideas the americans have and apply them badly in the UK.
Cant you guys just come up with some domestic ideas ?
I'm sure I won't be first to note applying shit US ideas is not restricted to the left. It's the cultural cringe that causes it.
An interesting idea from Hunt. Cunningly, it conveys the impression that most benefit claimants are skiving, whereas of course they are mostly: 1. Retired (12.5m), 2. Disabled or sick (2.2m), 3. Working but in low pay (2.1m)
Anyhow, Hunt's idea seems to be concentrating on the 300,000 who fail to get a job after 18 months. For many of them HMG finding them a work placement would be potentially helpful.
I just wonder where they are going to find willing employers to offer these placements; quite a lot of these long-term UC claimants no sensible employer would offer a job too, in my experience.
If anyone wants to see something undeniably gross, I once blew a bogey that looked like this picture of JRM reclining and just had to take a photo of it.
An interesting idea from Hunt. Cunningly, it conveys the impression that most benefit claimants are skiving, whereas of course they are mostly: 1. Retired (12.5m), 2. Disabled or sick (2.2m), 3. Working but in low pay (2.1m)
Anyhow, Hunt's idea seems to be concentrating on the 300,000 who fail to get a job after 18 months. For many of them HMG finding them a work placement would be potentially helpful.
I just wonder where they are going to find willing employers to offer these placements; quite a lot of these long-term UC claimants no sensible employer would offer a job too, in my experience.
Are there no rocks that need breaking?
I am sure there are a few HS2 cuttings that need filling in.
Good grief. The obsession of those on the right with 'woke' whatever that is, is truly something to behold.
It's akin to McCarthy's 'reds under the bed' or the C17th fear of 'popery'.
Perhaps, but no worse than lefties who claim that all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish" rather than practical people who might notice that Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall..
1. I don't see many any lefties on here claiming that 'all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish"' but I see a lots of PB righties banging on about 'woke',
2. 'Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall' Well, it's a view. But I think when the electorate consider the period 1997 to 2010 (29.5% real GDP growth) with 2010 to 2023 (21.6% real GDP growth) they might conclude the whelk stall was rather better run under Labour.
@Andy_JS presents as a very reasonable, thoughtful man, whose views are various and hard to pin to a mast. Yet when I asked him what his worldview was he said: anti-woke. I thought that a very odd position. I'm not particularly woke, but to define one's entire worldview as 'anti-woke' seems a narrow outlook at best.
Did you ask him to define the 'woke' he was anti?
My guess is it will consist of a series of the most extreme, and rare, examples of stupidity that are so far round the political horseshoe as to be back on the other side. The sort of nonsense that no sane person supports and certainly not people like myself, yet I am often classed as 'woke' here on PB.
As I said earlier, I find the whole 'woke' obsession rather curious and slightly disturbing.
Since some of you here are fond of the famous Gerald the Gorilla sketch, I thought I'd share this bit of rot I came across while searching for a link to the sketch to send to a friend who'd never seen it. It is, at last count, the third highest search result in Google for the sketch:
TL;DR, it features a man dressed as a gorilla, which it argues is a metaphor for black people, and when you show a man in a gorilla suit it is *always* a metaphor for black people, whether intended or not.
The article references critical race theory numerous times, as well as their 'outrage' at the sketch.
I would politely suggest that anyone who sees black people whenever they see a gorilla might be a tad racist themselves, and to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a gorilla is just a gorilla.
Never mind the fact that Not the Nine O'Clock News was also responsible for the Constable Savage sketch, a pretty searing indictment of the institutional racism of the police at the time.
But that is the woke mind virus. *Everything* must be viewed through the lens of critical race theory, which is really just Habermas's idea of power structures rewritten to be about the colour of your skin. Nothing else matters. Just victim and victimiser. A binary worldview where one is either a victim or not based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege".
It's worth noting that the link I shared is also hawking diversity and inclusion training courses.
To your point: Why are people so obsessed with woke? Because it's a parasitical entity spreading throughout schools, offices and governmental institutions of the land. It is a cancer that is spreading and metastasising, the end result of which as we are currently seeing is the rise of antisemitism and the "othering" of Jews, as pointed out by Bari Weiss:
"Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading. Little wonder people are so obsessed with the spread.
I appreciate the fulsome answer, thanks. Clearly the idea that Gerald the Gorilla is racist is nonsense. I suggest it would be an extreme view, not shared by very many at all.
Should it be resisted? Yes. Does it mean "Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading? Does it bollocks.
Firstly, if this example is your definition of 'woke' then none of us lefties on here are woke. OTOH if we PB lefties are all woke, your example or errant nonsense is not woke, it's an extreme view held by a very small minority.
You can't have it both ways.
On the one hand, the link I shared is an outlier - nobody *sane* could think that sketch is a racist dig at black people.
On the other hand, it's also published by a company that delivers DEI courses to workplaces. If you've ever met the DEI mob at work, or in a university, or elsewhere, you'd know that this is the logical end point of critical race theory - viewing everything through a racial lens.
Until today, I would have called it nothing more than an outlier and dismissed it. But it's also a day where The Guardian had to take down Bin Laden's anti-semitic, homophobic and anti-western tirade because too many people were *agreeing* with it.
Woke goes beyond being PC, it goes beyond diversity. As I say, it is a rejigging of Habermas's theories along racial lines. And the extent and depth to which it has permeated our culture is deeply worrying, as the Bari Weiss article I linked to points out.
You're right, by the above definition, there aren't many "woke" people on PB. That's because most people on PB have a brain and are capable of critical thought. But woke isn't about thought - it's a belief, a religious fervour, a kind of fundamentalism that accepts no quarter, no debate, no opposing views. In such a context, I don't think defining yourself as "anti-woke" is particularly surprising.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
That streaming video in Morocco incurred a big bill isn’t a surprise. That a legislator allowed his parliamentary device, which probably contains all sorts of confidential material and correspondence, and which was supplied to the MP as a tool for his job, to be used by his children to watch videos is the first issue. Yes, quite probably the child was simply interested in football, but there are also children of politicians who are sufficiently political engaged - often in a different direction to their parents, especially during the teenages, to go poking about to see what else they might find. The rule should be that IT and telephony devices given out to our ministers and MPs aren’t used for anything other than official business.
The second issue is who pays for the bill; it doesn’t seem reasonable that we taxpayers should do so.
If anyone wants to see something undeniably gross, I once blew a bogey that looked like this picture of JRM reclining and just had to take a photo of it.
Hopefully you followed IDS’s example and swallowed it down?
If anyone wants to see something undeniably gross, I once blew a bogey that looked like this picture of JRM reclining and just had to take a photo of it.
Hopefully you followed IDS’s example and swallowed it down?
Would an American evangelical eat their Jesus toast?
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
That streaming video in Morocco incurred a big bill isn’t a surprise. That a legislator allowed his parliamentary device, which probably contains all sorts of confidential material and correspondence, and which was supplied to the MP as a tool for his job, to be used by his children to watch videos is the first issue. Yes, quite probably the child was simply interested in football, but there are also children of politicians who are sufficiently political engaged - often in a different direction to their parents, especially during the teenages, to go poking about to see what else they might find. The rule should be that IT and telephony devices given out to our ministers and MPs aren’t used for anything other than official business.
The second issue is who pays for the bill; it doesn’t seem reasonable that we taxpayers should do so.
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Interesting. Where are all the thickos who Labour can't afford to offend who apparently vote Leave and whose views are Neanderthal? I can see a plurality of Tories who fit that description but not Labour or Lib Dem. Quite heartening findings
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Woops.
Never heard of the crime of uttering, had to google it. You learn something every day on PB.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
That streaming video in Morocco incurred a big bill isn’t a surprise. That a legislator allowed his parliamentary device, which probably contains all sorts of confidential material and correspondence, and which was supplied to the MP as a tool for his job, to be used by his children to watch videos is the first issue. Yes, quite probably the child was simply interested in football, but there are also children of politicians who are sufficiently political engaged - often in a different direction to their parents, especially during the teenages, to go poking about to see what else they might find. The rule should be that IT and telephony devices given out to our ministers and MPs aren’t used for anything other than official business.
The second issue is who pays for the bill; it doesn’t seem reasonable that we taxpayers should do so.
Hasn't he already agreed to pay it?
He's mental if he has.
Since about 2010, I've been able to log on to my mobile provider's website and set a "max/cut-off point" for my bill, which I have set at about £70 a month. If for whatever reason it goes over that, my phone stops working until I manually go into my account and clear the limit.
That should be the standard for all work issued devices. Especially when the person being issued the device doesn't know the tariff on the phone, and probably reasonably assumes their bill will be no more than £100 a month, as most contracts these days include international roaming.
The error here was in the IT department letting him rack up an 11k bill without the very easy one-click step of setting a limit that needs to be overridden manually.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
BT still has its ‘roam like home’ policy for the EU, but the general promise that Brexit wouldn’t lead to Brits being charged extortionate rates for roaming within other EU countries, is already broken.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
That streaming video in Morocco incurred a big bill isn’t a surprise. That a legislator allowed his parliamentary device, which probably contains all sorts of confidential material and correspondence, and which was supplied to the MP as a tool for his job, to be used by his children to watch videos is the first issue. Yes, quite probably the child was simply interested in football, but there are also children of politicians who are sufficiently political engaged - often in a different direction to their parents, especially during the teenages, to go poking about to see what else they might find. The rule should be that IT and telephony devices given out to our ministers and MPs aren’t used for anything other than official business.
The second issue is who pays for the bill; it doesn’t seem reasonable that we taxpayers should do so.
Hasn't he already agreed to pay it?
He's mental if he has.
Since about 2010, I've been able to log on to my mobile provider's website and set a "max/cut-off point" for my bill, which I have set at about £70 a month. If for whatever reason it goes over that, my phone stops working until I manually go into my account and clear the limit.
That should be the standard for all work issued devices. Especially when the person being issued the device doesn't know the tariff on the phone, and probably reasonably assumes their bill will be no more than £100 a month, as most contracts these days include international roaming.
The error here was in the IT department letting him rack up an 11k bill without the very easy one-click step of setting a limit that needs to be overridden manually.
This would all be fine, if he had not been told by his superiors to update to a new SIM. Since he didn't follow instructions, I think he's stuck.
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Woops.
Well that’s today’s new word. The crime of passing a forged document with intent to defraud. Who knew?
Good grief. The obsession of those on the right with 'woke' whatever that is, is truly something to behold.
It's akin to McCarthy's 'reds under the bed' or the C17th fear of 'popery'.
Perhaps, but no worse than lefties who claim that all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish" rather than practical people who might notice that Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall..
1. I don't see many any lefties on here claiming that 'all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish"' but I see a lots of PB righties banging on about 'woke',
2. 'Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall' Well, it's a view. But I think when the electorate consider the period 1997 to 2010 (29.5% real GDP growth) with 2010 to 2023 (21.6% real GDP growth) they might conclude the whelk stall was rather better run under Labour.
@Andy_JS presents as a very reasonable, thoughtful man, whose views are various and hard to pin to a mast. Yet when I asked him what his worldview was he said: anti-woke. I thought that a very odd position. I'm not particularly woke, but to define one's entire worldview as 'anti-woke' seems a narrow outlook at best.
Did you ask him to define the 'woke' he was anti?
My guess is it will consist of a series of the most extreme, and rare, examples of stupidity that are so far round the political horseshoe as to be back on the other side. The sort of nonsense that no sane person supports and certainly not people like myself, yet I am often classed as 'woke' here on PB.
As I said earlier, I find the whole 'woke' obsession rather curious and slightly disturbing.
Since some of you here are fond of the famous Gerald the Gorilla sketch, I thought I'd share this bit of rot I came across while searching for a link to the sketch to send to a friend who'd never seen it. It is, at last count, the third highest search result in Google for the sketch:
TL;DR, it features a man dressed as a gorilla, which it argues is a metaphor for black people, and when you show a man in a gorilla suit it is *always* a metaphor for black people, whether intended or not.
The article references critical race theory numerous times, as well as their 'outrage' at the sketch.
I would politely suggest that anyone who sees black people whenever they see a gorilla might be a tad racist themselves, and to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a gorilla is just a gorilla.
Never mind the fact that Not the Nine O'Clock News was also responsible for the Constable Savage sketch, a pretty searing indictment of the institutional racism of the police at the time.
But that is the woke mind virus. *Everything* must be viewed through the lens of critical race theory, which is really just Habermas's idea of power structures rewritten to be about the colour of your skin. Nothing else matters. Just victim and victimiser. A binary worldview where one is either a victim or not based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege".
It's worth noting that the link I shared is also hawking diversity and inclusion training courses.
To your point: Why are people so obsessed with woke? Because it's a parasitical entity spreading throughout schools, offices and governmental institutions of the land. It is a cancer that is spreading and metastasising, the end result of which as we are currently seeing is the rise of antisemitism and the "othering" of Jews, as pointed out by Bari Weiss:
"Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading. Little wonder people are so obsessed with the spread.
I appreciate the fulsome answer, thanks. Clearly the idea that Gerald the Gorilla is racist is nonsense. I suggest it would be an extreme view, not shared by very many at all.
Should it be resisted? Yes. Does it mean "Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading? Does it bollocks.
Firstly, if this example is your definition of 'woke' then none of us lefties on here are woke. OTOH if we PB lefties are all woke, your example or errant nonsense is not woke, it's an extreme view held by a very small minority.
You can't have it both ways.
On the one hand, the link I shared is an outlier - nobody *sane* could think that sketch is a racist dig at black people.
On the other hand, it's also published by a company that delivers DEI courses to workplaces. If you've ever met the DEI mob at work, or in a university, or elsewhere, you'd know that this is the logical end point of critical race theory - viewing everything through a racial lens.
Until today, I would have called it nothing more than an outlier and dismissed it. But it's also a day where The Guardian had to take down Bin Laden's anti-semitic, homophobic and anti-western tirade because too many people were *agreeing* with it.
Woke goes beyond being PC, it goes beyond diversity. As I say, it is a rejigging of Habermas's theories along racial lines. And the extent and depth to which it has permeated our culture is deeply worrying, as the Bari Weiss article I linked to points out.
You're right, by the above definition, there aren't many "woke" people on PB. That's because most people on PB have a brain and are capable of critical thought. But woke isn't about thought - it's a belief, a religious fervour, a kind of fundamentalism that accepts no quarter, no debate, no opposing views. In such a context, I don't think defining yourself as "anti-woke" is particularly surprising.
If the people who define themselves as woke are mostly not considered woke by the anti-woke isn't it about time we started using different and more precise language?
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Woops.
Well that’s today’s new word. The crime of passing a forged document with intent to defraud. Who knew?
Never heard anyone uttering that one in polite conversation.
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Woops.
Well that’s today’s new word. The crime of passing a forged document with intent to defraud. Who knew?
Never heard anyone uttering that one in polite conversation.
Utter waste of time if you ask me, just simplify it and go with fraud.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
A lot of countries in MENA region still have old state-owned monopoly telecoms companies, and they make a *massive* proportion of their revenue from overseas calls and roaming. They don’t like getting into international agreements if they can avoid it, and also block many common voice data services such as FaceTime and WhatsApp calling.
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Woops.
Well that’s today’s new word. The crime of passing a forged document with intent to defraud. Who knew?
Never heard anyone uttering that one in polite conversation.
He could plead insanity. Or would that be utter madness?
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Woops.
Never heard of the crime of uttering, had to google it. You learn something every day on PB.
Sorry it is basically fraud by putting forward a false document. Like a claim for expenses incurred on holiday, for example.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
That streaming video in Morocco incurred a big bill isn’t a surprise. That a legislator allowed his parliamentary device, which probably contains all sorts of confidential material and correspondence, and which was supplied to the MP as a tool for his job, to be used by his children to watch videos is the first issue. Yes, quite probably the child was simply interested in football, but there are also children of politicians who are sufficiently political engaged - often in a different direction to their parents, especially during the teenages, to go poking about to see what else they might find. The rule should be that IT and telephony devices given out to our ministers and MPs aren’t used for anything other than official business.
The second issue is who pays for the bill; it doesn’t seem reasonable that we taxpayers should do so.
Hasn't he already agreed to pay it?
He's mental if he has.
Since about 2010, I've been able to log on to my mobile provider's website and set a "max/cut-off point" for my bill, which I have set at about £70 a month. If for whatever reason it goes over that, my phone stops working until I manually go into my account and clear the limit.
That should be the standard for all work issued devices. Especially when the person being issued the device doesn't know the tariff on the phone, and probably reasonably assumes their bill will be no more than £100 a month, as most contracts these days include international roaming.
The error here was in the IT department letting him rack up an 11k bill without the very easy one-click step of setting a limit that needs to be overridden manually.
This would all be fine, if he had not been told by his superiors to update to a new SIM. Since he didn't follow instructions, I think he's stuck.
Again, an IT department failing. On my work computer, updates were mandatory and the machine was bricked unless the update was completed. Very easy to do these days.
Also, you don't need to update to a new sim to set an account level block on spend - that's done by the account owner with a login and password, not the sim.
Looks like a very obvious case of an IT dept fail to me. Putting a block on spend above a certain level really is cost management 101. The same reason I can't spend 11k on my old company credit card. There needs to be a hard limit on how much your employees can spend without it raising red flags and requiring further approval. If nothing else - what if the device / credit card gets nicked? Hard limits should be baked in for that reason alone.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
BT still has its ‘roam like home’ policy for the EU, but the general promise that Brexit wouldn’t lead to Brits being charged extortionate rates for roaming within other EU countries, is already broken.
Most networks have EU roaming either free or as a small paid option. For example, 1p mobile offer 25Gb per month, and free roaming for £10 per month, no contract:
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Woops.
Well that’s today’s new word. The crime of passing a forged document with intent to defraud. Who knew?
Never heard anyone uttering that one in polite conversation.
He could plead insanity. Or would that be utter madness?
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
Feck off you absolute tit, it is my taxes he tried to steal to pay for his £11K illicit claim. Should b esacked for stupidity as well as criminal activity.
Give the guy a break, it's loose change. Its the sort of paltry sum Michelle and Dougie wouldn't bother picking up if they dropped any of their PPE wedge.
Credit where it's due to the SNP. Stephen Flynn's amendment to the King's Speech was political and theatrical genius. The Labour Party torn asunder, Lefties calling for Starmer's nuts and Sunak's shocking speech brushed under the carpet in the hubbub. The SNP are patriots to the core in their clear support of the Conservative and Unionist Party Government of the United Kingdom.
OnlyFans is an online vehicle whereby poor people extract money from the rich by pretending to offer sexual services. Sephora is a beauty product line that includes makeup, skincare, stuff like that.
So basically he cleansed his skin to be nice and fresh, and then wanked himself stupid. I assume he also used the funds to pay for the tissues, but that's speculation on my part. And ejaculation on his pa[That's enough - Ed]
I used to work for Sephora (indirectly). Think Boots with just the cosmetics and no drugs. It is a French-owned (part of LVMH) chain with physical shops and a big online presence. They are big in Europe and America, small elsewhere and barely exist in Britain.
The more I read about the government's response to the Supreme Court ruling, the more difficult I find it to fathom what they are proposing.
The government is assuring us that they have assurances that people will not be sent back to their countries of origin. That has to apply whether or not the Rwandans approve their application, because part of what is at issue is that people genuinely in danger may have their applications rejected.
So what will happen to the people whose applications are rejected by Rwanda? Can they send them to a third country, which can then return them to their place of origin? That doesn't sound like much of a safeguard.
Must the Rwandans keep them, whether or not they approve the application? I don't believe that's going to happen.
The only alternative I can think of is that they are going to send the rejected applicants back to the UK. Can that really be what's intended? Difficult to believe, but difficult to see how else it's meant to work.
In fact it looks as though Rwanda will be able to send them anywhere it likes if their applications are rejected. Judging from this report all that's going to happen is that the UK will try to address concerns by "improving the quality of asylum decision making, ensuring us a stronger judicial oversight of the process." I'm not sure whose judiciary - ours or Rwanda's - is intended to have oversight over exactly what process: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/16/uk-government-to-present-full-law-to-set-aside-supreme-court-rwanda-decision
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
BT still has its ‘roam like home’ policy for the EU, but the general promise that Brexit wouldn’t lead to Brits being charged extortionate rates for roaming within other EU countries, is already broken.
Most networks have EU roaming either free or as a small paid option. For example, 1p mobile offer 25Gb per month, and free roaming for £10 per month, no contract:
OTOH EE pledged to keep free EU roaming for existing contracts but they don't mention that if you 'upgrade' your contract you lose that free roaming. Bastards nearly caught me out with that one.
LAbour should just legislate to force UK cellphone providers to make roaming free. Small painless win for HMG.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
BT still has its ‘roam like home’ policy for the EU, but the general promise that Brexit wouldn’t lead to Brits being charged extortionate rates for roaming within other EU countries, is already broken.
Most networks have EU roaming either free or as a small paid option. For example, 1p mobile offer 25Gb per month, and free roaming for £10 per month, no contract:
OTOH EE pledged to keep free EU roaming for existing contracts but they don't mention that if you 'upgrade' your contract you lose that free roaming. Bastards nearly caught me out with that one.
LAbour should just legislate to force UK cellphone providers to make roaming free. Small painless win for HMG.
That would force people who don't travel to subsidise those who do. It would be regressive and hit the poor hardest.
Good grief. The obsession of those on the right with 'woke' whatever that is, is truly something to behold.
It's akin to McCarthy's 'reds under the bed' or the C17th fear of 'popery'.
Perhaps, but no worse than lefties who claim that all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish" rather than practical people who might notice that Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall..
1. I don't see many any lefties on here claiming that 'all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish"' but I see a lots of PB righties banging on about 'woke',
2. 'Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall' Well, it's a view. But I think when the electorate consider the period 1997 to 2010 (29.5% real GDP growth) with 2010 to 2023 (21.6% real GDP growth) they might conclude the whelk stall was rather better run under Labour.
@Andy_JS presents as a very reasonable, thoughtful man, whose views are various and hard to pin to a mast. Yet when I asked him what his worldview was he said: anti-woke. I thought that a very odd position. I'm not particularly woke, but to define one's entire worldview as 'anti-woke' seems a narrow outlook at best.
Did you ask him to define the 'woke' he was anti?
My guess is it will consist of a series of the most extreme, and rare, examples of stupidity that are so far round the political horseshoe as to be back on the other side. The sort of nonsense that no sane person supports and certainly not people like myself, yet I am often classed as 'woke' here on PB.
As I said earlier, I find the whole 'woke' obsession rather curious and slightly disturbing.
Since some of you here are fond of the famous Gerald the Gorilla sketch, I thought I'd share this bit of rot I came across while searching for a link to the sketch to send to a friend who'd never seen it. It is, at last count, the third highest search result in Google for the sketch:
TL;DR, it features a man dressed as a gorilla, which it argues is a metaphor for black people, and when you show a man in a gorilla suit it is *always* a metaphor for black people, whether intended or not.
The article references critical race theory numerous times, as well as their 'outrage' at the sketch.
I would politely suggest that anyone who sees black people whenever they see a gorilla might be a tad racist themselves, and to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a gorilla is just a gorilla.
Never mind the fact that Not the Nine O'Clock News was also responsible for the Constable Savage sketch, a pretty searing indictment of the institutional racism of the police at the time.
But that is the woke mind virus. *Everything* must be viewed through the lens of critical race theory, which is really just Habermas's idea of power structures rewritten to be about the colour of your skin. Nothing else matters. Just victim and victimiser. A binary worldview where one is either a victim or not based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege".
It's worth noting that the link I shared is also hawking diversity and inclusion training courses.
To your point: Why are people so obsessed with woke? Because it's a parasitical entity spreading throughout schools, offices and governmental institutions of the land. It is a cancer that is spreading and metastasising, the end result of which as we are currently seeing is the rise of antisemitism and the "othering" of Jews, as pointed out by Bari Weiss:
"Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading. Little wonder people are so obsessed with the spread.
I appreciate the fulsome answer, thanks. Clearly the idea that Gerald the Gorilla is racist is nonsense. I suggest it would be an extreme view, not shared by very many at all.
Should it be resisted? Yes. Does it mean "Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading? Does it bollocks.
Firstly, if this example is your definition of 'woke' then none of us lefties on here are woke. OTOH if we PB lefties are all woke, your example or errant nonsense is not woke, it's an extreme view held by a very small minority.
You can't have it both ways.
On the one hand, the link I shared is an outlier - nobody *sane* could think that sketch is a racist dig at black people.
On the other hand, it's also published by a company that delivers DEI courses to workplaces. If you've ever met the DEI mob at work, or in a university, or elsewhere, you'd know that this is the logical end point of critical race theory - viewing everything through a racial lens.
Until today, I would have called it nothing more than an outlier and dismissed it. But it's also a day where The Guardian had to take down Bin Laden's anti-semitic, homophobic and anti-western tirade because too many people were *agreeing* with it.
Woke goes beyond being PC, it goes beyond diversity. As I say, it is a rejigging of Habermas's theories along racial lines. And the extent and depth to which it has permeated our culture is deeply worrying, as the Bari Weiss article I linked to points out.
You're right, by the above definition, there aren't many "woke" people on PB. That's because most people on PB have a brain and are capable of critical thought. But woke isn't about thought - it's a belief, a religious fervour, a kind of fundamentalism that accepts no quarter, no debate, no opposing views. In such a context, I don't think defining yourself as "anti-woke" is particularly surprising.
If the people who define themselves as woke are mostly not considered woke by the anti-woke isn't it about time we started using different and more precise language?
I would argue that woke = subscribes (uncritically) to critical race theory, which is my more precise definition. There are probably wider definitions, including the trans issue - but fundamentally it is about dividing the world into victim or victimiser, a rejigging of Habermas's base-and-superstructure concept. You are labelled as either victim or victimiser based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege". It is a world without nuance, or context, or critical thought.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
Feck off you absolute tit, it is my taxes he tried to steal to pay for his £11K illicit claim. Should b esacked for stupidity as well as criminal activity.
Give the guy a break, it's loose change. Its the sort of paltry sum Michelle and Dougie wouldn't bother picking up if they dropped any of their PPE wedge.
Credit where it's due to the SNP. Stephen Flynn's amendment to the King's Speech was political and theatrical genius. The Labour Party torn asunder, Lefties calling for Starmer's nuts and Sunak's shocking speech brushed under the carpet in the hubbub. The SNP are patriots to the core in their clear support of the Conservative and Unionist Party Government of the United Kingdom.
The Labour rebellion sounded dramatic but reading the front bench resignation letters they've made it clear their continued support for Starmer and there’s no anger between the whips and the rebels . Jess Phillips talked about this on the News Agents. Of course if this was close to an election the stakes would have been higher and rebelling then would be very irresponsible as you don’t want to gift attack lines to your opponents .
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
A lot of countries in MENA region still have old state-owned monopoly telecoms companies, and they make a *massive* proportion of their revenue from overseas calls and roaming. They don’t like getting into international agreements if they can avoid it, and also block many common voice data services such as FaceTime and WhatsApp calling.
The responsibility for a UK based contract to contain a default cap could still apply. It would be up to the UK provider to monitor and block once the threshold is reached.
It is one of the Brexit benefits that the previous £45 a day data cap (unless waived explicitly) has been scrapped, although I am not sure that they ever applied to business contracts. (They should too.)
"This included a cap on data usage abroad of £45+VAT per day (unless the customer expressly agreed to continue) and a requirement on operators to inform customers when they have reached 80% and 100% of their data allowance. Operators also had an obligation to inform customer how to avoid inadvertent roaming costs.
These protections expired on 30 June 2022 in accordance with the ‘sunset clause’ in the 2012 EU Roaming Regulation."
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
BT still has its ‘roam like home’ policy for the EU, but the general promise that Brexit wouldn’t lead to Brits being charged extortionate rates for roaming within other EU countries, is already broken.
Most networks have EU roaming either free or as a small paid option. For example, 1p mobile offer 25Gb per month, and free roaming for £10 per month, no contract:
OTOH EE pledged to keep free EU roaming for existing contracts but they don't mention that if you 'upgrade' your contract you lose that free roaming. Bastards nearly caught me out with that one.
LAbour should just legislate to force UK cellphone providers to make roaming free. Small painless win for HMG.
That would force people who don't travel to subsidise those who do. It would be regressive and hit the poor hardest.
If roaming were included, it would not be possible to get a decent mobile phone contract for £4.50 a month:
Good grief. The obsession of those on the right with 'woke' whatever that is, is truly something to behold.
It's akin to McCarthy's 'reds under the bed' or the C17th fear of 'popery'.
Perhaps, but no worse than lefties who claim that all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish" rather than practical people who might notice that Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall..
1. I don't see many any lefties on here claiming that 'all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish"' but I see a lots of PB righties banging on about 'woke',
2. 'Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall' Well, it's a view. But I think when the electorate consider the period 1997 to 2010 (29.5% real GDP growth) with 2010 to 2023 (21.6% real GDP growth) they might conclude the whelk stall was rather better run under Labour.
@Andy_JS presents as a very reasonable, thoughtful man, whose views are various and hard to pin to a mast. Yet when I asked him what his worldview was he said: anti-woke. I thought that a very odd position. I'm not particularly woke, but to define one's entire worldview as 'anti-woke' seems a narrow outlook at best.
Did you ask him to define the 'woke' he was anti?
My guess is it will consist of a series of the most extreme, and rare, examples of stupidity that are so far round the political horseshoe as to be back on the other side. The sort of nonsense that no sane person supports and certainly not people like myself, yet I am often classed as 'woke' here on PB.
As I said earlier, I find the whole 'woke' obsession rather curious and slightly disturbing.
Since some of you here are fond of the famous Gerald the Gorilla sketch, I thought I'd share this bit of rot I came across while searching for a link to the sketch to send to a friend who'd never seen it. It is, at last count, the third highest search result in Google for the sketch:
TL;DR, it features a man dressed as a gorilla, which it argues is a metaphor for black people, and when you show a man in a gorilla suit it is *always* a metaphor for black people, whether intended or not.
The article references critical race theory numerous times, as well as their 'outrage' at the sketch.
I would politely suggest that anyone who sees black people whenever they see a gorilla might be a tad racist themselves, and to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a gorilla is just a gorilla.
Never mind the fact that Not the Nine O'Clock News was also responsible for the Constable Savage sketch, a pretty searing indictment of the institutional racism of the police at the time.
But that is the woke mind virus. *Everything* must be viewed through the lens of critical race theory, which is really just Habermas's idea of power structures rewritten to be about the colour of your skin. Nothing else matters. Just victim and victimiser. A binary worldview where one is either a victim or not based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege".
It's worth noting that the link I shared is also hawking diversity and inclusion training courses.
To your point: Why are people so obsessed with woke? Because it's a parasitical entity spreading throughout schools, offices and governmental institutions of the land. It is a cancer that is spreading and metastasising, the end result of which as we are currently seeing is the rise of antisemitism and the "othering" of Jews, as pointed out by Bari Weiss:
"Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading. Little wonder people are so obsessed with the spread.
I appreciate the fulsome answer, thanks. Clearly the idea that Gerald the Gorilla is racist is nonsense. I suggest it would be an extreme view, not shared by very many at all.
Should it be resisted? Yes. Does it mean "Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading? Does it bollocks.
Firstly, if this example is your definition of 'woke' then none of us lefties on here are woke. OTOH if we PB lefties are all woke, your example or errant nonsense is not woke, it's an extreme view held by a very small minority.
You can't have it both ways.
On the one hand, the link I shared is an outlier - nobody *sane* could think that sketch is a racist dig at black people.
On the other hand, it's also published by a company that delivers DEI courses to workplaces. If you've ever met the DEI mob at work, or in a university, or elsewhere, you'd know that this is the logical end point of critical race theory - viewing everything through a racial lens.
Until today, I would have called it nothing more than an outlier and dismissed it. But it's also a day where The Guardian had to take down Bin Laden's anti-semitic, homophobic and anti-western tirade because too many people were *agreeing* with it.
Woke goes beyond being PC, it goes beyond diversity. As I say, it is a rejigging of Habermas's theories along racial lines. And the extent and depth to which it has permeated our culture is deeply worrying, as the Bari Weiss article I linked to points out.
You're right, by the above definition, there aren't many "woke" people on PB. That's because most people on PB have a brain and are capable of critical thought. But woke isn't about thought - it's a belief, a religious fervour, a kind of fundamentalism that accepts no quarter, no debate, no opposing views. In such a context, I don't think defining yourself as "anti-woke" is particularly surprising.
If the people who define themselves as woke are mostly not considered woke by the anti-woke isn't it about time we started using different and more precise language?
I would argue that woke = subscribes (uncritically) to critical race theory, which is my more precise definition. There are probably wider definitions, including the trans issue - but fundamentally it is about dividing the world into victim or victimiser, a rejigging of Habermas's base-and-superstructure concept. You are labelled as either victim or victimiser based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege". It is a world without nuance, or context, or critical thought.
You can define woke how you like. Many others define it as simply being cordial to each other.
If you think critical race theory is such a problem, you should really use better language or you won't have much chance of convincing people who understand woke differently.
In the opinion of columnists I respect, this book explains many US problems. (I'll get to it eventually, but it is not yet in my to-read stack.) https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo205550079.html "In The Two-Parent Privilege, Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline has led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, economic: when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. Studies show that these effects are today starker, and more unevenly distributed, than ever before. Kearney examines the underlying causes of the marriage decline in the US and draws lessons for how the US can reverse this trend to ensure the country’s future prosperity."
I mention this because I think the argument in it should be considered by anyone thinking about, for example, racial disparities, and increasing economic inequality. Quite possibly in the UK, as well as the US.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
BT still has its ‘roam like home’ policy for the EU, but the general promise that Brexit wouldn’t lead to Brits being charged extortionate rates for roaming within other EU countries, is already broken.
Most networks have EU roaming either free or as a small paid option. For example, 1p mobile offer 25Gb per month, and free roaming for £10 per month, no contract:
OTOH EE pledged to keep free EU roaming for existing contracts but they don't mention that if you 'upgrade' your contract you lose that free roaming. Bastards nearly caught me out with that one.
LAbour should just legislate to force UK cellphone providers to make roaming free. Small painless win for HMG.
You should be able to get roaming as one of your free benefits, is how I have it on EE.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
BT still has its ‘roam like home’ policy for the EU, but the general promise that Brexit wouldn’t lead to Brits being charged extortionate rates for roaming within other EU countries, is already broken.
Most networks have EU roaming either free or as a small paid option. For example, 1p mobile offer 25Gb per month, and free roaming for £10 per month, no contract:
OTOH EE pledged to keep free EU roaming for existing contracts but they don't mention that if you 'upgrade' your contract you lose that free roaming. Bastards nearly caught me out with that one.
LAbour should just legislate to force UK cellphone providers to make roaming free. Small painless win for HMG.
You should be able to get roaming as one of your free benefits, is how I have it on EE.
Yes, but to get the "free" EE benefits you need to pay about £25-50pm more than the market rate.....
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
Feck off you absolute tit, it is my taxes he tried to steal to pay for his £11K illicit claim. Should b esacked for stupidity as well as criminal activity.
Give the guy a break, it's loose change. Its the sort of paltry sum Michelle and Dougie wouldn't bother picking up if they dropped any of their PPE wedge.
Credit where it's due to the SNP. Stephen Flynn's amendment to the King's Speech was political and theatrical genius. The Labour Party torn asunder, Lefties calling for Starmer's nuts and Sunak's shocking speech brushed under the carpet in the hubbub. The SNP are patriots to the core in their clear support of the Conservative and Unionist Party Government of the United Kingdom.
The Labour rebellion sounded dramatic but reading the front bench resignation letters they've made it clear their continued support for Starmer and there’s no anger between the whips and the rebels . Jess Phillips talked about this on the News Agents. Of course if this was close to an election the stakes would have been higher and rebelling then would be very irresponsible as you don’t want to gift attack lines to your opponents .
My point was under the circumstances in Gaza it was a nasty, cynical party political stunt by the SNP.
I am not sure it will have moved the dial, but it allowed Sunak to avoid any critical analysis of his disgraceful speech. But I suppose a one-upmanship win, is a win North or South of the Border. Cans of Tennant's Extra all 'round.
The more stupid you surround yourself with, the unluckier you get.
Michael Matheson seems like one of those people prosecutors love and defence counsels absolutely hate.
'Yeah I'm not guilty of this charge but I am guilty of this much serious charge'
A friend of mine is a JP. He had this guy who had basically forged his season ticket. He was charged with using an invalid ticket and incredibly went to trial. My friend found him not guilty of having an invalid ticket but guilty of the alternative of uttering. Until that point the accused had a career in financial services.
Woops.
Never heard of the crime of uttering, had to google it. You learn something every day on PB.
Sorry it is basically fraud by putting forward a false document. Like a claim for expenses incurred on holiday, for example.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
Feck off you absolute tit, it is my taxes he tried to steal to pay for his £11K illicit claim. Should b esacked for stupidity as well as criminal activity.
Give the guy a break, it's loose change. Its the sort of paltry sum Michelle and Dougie wouldn't bother picking up if they dropped any of their PPE wedge.
Credit where it's due to the SNP. Stephen Flynn's amendment to the King's Speech was political and theatrical genius. The Labour Party torn asunder, Lefties calling for Starmer's nuts and Sunak's shocking speech brushed under the carpet in the hubbub. The SNP are patriots to the core in their clear support of the Conservative and Unionist Party Government of the United Kingdom.
The Labour rebellion sounded dramatic but reading the front bench resignation letters they've made it clear their continued support for Starmer and there’s no anger between the whips and the rebels . Jess Phillips talked about this on the News Agents. Of course if this was close to an election the stakes would have been higher and rebelling then would be very irresponsible as you don’t want to gift attack lines to your opponents .
However, Slab have a completely different policy at Holyrood. The same party whose MPs followed the SKS instructions. Not sure what will happen next.
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
“Scottish Labour deputy leader said parents of teenagers would understand the scenario.”
Ummm… no. If you have a work device you shouldn’t be letting your kids on it. Buy a personal device and let them use that.
Although if the article I read is right, the kids didn’t use the device but used it as a hotspot to access the internet via their own devices.
It’s the sort of sneaky thing I can imagine my own kids doing and, if it wasn’t for my device being utterly locked down regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily think to disable that function.
But the lying when caught…/ nah.
They wouldn't be able to use the hot-spot without having the password for the iPad to turn on the WiFi hot-spot, or, if it was already turned on, the password to access the hot-spot. On a government device. It's wrong on so many levels:
Not changing the sim when instructed to Allowing someone else to access your device, or leaving it unattended where it could be accessed by someone else Not impressing on your family, especially your kids, that this is not an OK thing to do and a potentially sackable scenario Giving family members the password for the device and/or the password for the hot-spot Being oblivious to the unlawful access (is this credible?) Being incuurious about how the bill had been run up before putting in the expenses claim (again, is this credible?) Lying about it to your fellow party members, and Scottish parliament.
The more that comes out, the worse it gets.
It makes it seem like a more straightforward case of fraud by avoiding using data on his own account.
It's pure stupidity because there's absolutely no need to run up such exhorbitant roaming bills these days with fairly ubiquitous public wifi and plenty of data plans with affordable, capped roaming.
Morocco is not listed as a roaming destination, even for most "worldwide" roaming plans. And even on demand, where 89 countries are available for £5/day, my network does not list morocco:
What I find astonishing is why he thought it was OK to give his family unfettered access to a government owned Ipad.
Seems like a storm in a teacup. His lads used it to watch the football. He didn't think too much about it. He was charged seven large by some chiselling phone network. Move on.
he is a government minister. An IPad is a computer. Security risk. He is an idiot.
Worse things happen at sea. The many computer nerds on here are obsessed with cybersecurity and VPNs and downloadable e-sims and all manner of techno-sci-fi bollox that the average joe knows little about and cares less. I can see how this happened. I mean I landed a £200 mobile phone bill for a day trip to Macedonia. Duh! I know. But easily done.
Yes; a big part of the problem here is that telcos are allowed to charge such extortionate rates for roaming at all, and that there is not a cap on the charge that cuts you off well before you get into four figures, let alone five. The minister clearly was rather careless with a government device, but there should not have been a 10K+ bill for anybody to pick up.
BT still has its ‘roam like home’ policy for the EU, but the general promise that Brexit wouldn’t lead to Brits being charged extortionate rates for roaming within other EU countries, is already broken.
Most networks have EU roaming either free or as a small paid option. For example, 1p mobile offer 25Gb per month, and free roaming for £10 per month, no contract:
OTOH EE pledged to keep free EU roaming for existing contracts but they don't mention that if you 'upgrade' your contract you lose that free roaming. Bastards nearly caught me out with that one.
LAbour should just legislate to force UK cellphone providers to make roaming free. Small painless win for HMG.
You should be able to get roaming as one of your free benefits, is how I have it on EE.
Yes, but to get the "free" EE benefits you need to pay about £25-50pm more than the market rate.....
Nah, I have EE unlimited data/calls/text with inclusive extras of EE music, roaming, and Microsoft 365 included for £25 a month.
I realise this is missing the point but why is the cabbie recording (let alone posting to X) what sounds like a private phone call?
Looking at the branding, it was on his dash cam. I presume these days all cabs have dash cams running through out for both liability of accidents and also protection against claims made by passengers.
If they should then release it onto twitter, well that's a different matter...but then there seems a free for all on basically posting any video of anybody for any reason on social media.
An interesting idea from Hunt. Cunningly, it conveys the impression that most benefit claimants are skiving, whereas of course they are mostly: 1. Retired (12.5m), 2. Disabled or sick (2.2m), 3. Working but in low pay (2.1m)
Anyhow, Hunt's idea seems to be concentrating on the 300,000 who fail to get a job after 18 months. For many of them HMG finding them a work placement would be potentially helpful.
I just wonder where they are going to find willing employers to offer these placements; quite a lot of these long-term UC claimants no sensible employer would offer a job too, in my experience.
Everybody to be assigned a job. Massive government expenditure to keep the economy going. State control of minutiae... oh god, why don't we just go full Soviet and get it over with? At least the USSR built houses and put people in orbit. We can't even get a Reliant Robin into LEO.
(All together now. The Government literally does not know how to run a country. Not in a partisan or silly way. They just don't know. They are pressing buttons at random at this point.)
I was rather wondering whether Hunt would create government jobs to provide these placements. Not sure that will save the public purse much though.
It rather reminds me of Spud's job interview in Trainspotting.
Sticking with anti-Semitism. Fascism doesn’t have to be anti-Semitic but it has to have a group that perform the purpose that Nazis used Jews for - a group of people who are a threat, an out group that they paint as both weak and strong, etc. Spanish and Italian fascism, whilst a still anti-Semitic, were much more concerned about the enemy within (the leftist) and people from the colonies (Ethiopians) then Jewish people. So anti-Semitism itself isn’t inherent to fascism, but an out group that performs that societal function for the fascist cause, is. Hence why you could still argue Japan, ancient Rome, or even ancient Sparta were fascistic, despite different cultural and historical contexts.
Using the Umberto Eco list, wokeism is a fascist ideology:
1. The cult of tradition - Wokeness imagines an idealised pre-capitalist, pre-colonialist society 2. The rejection of modernism - Wokeness sees capitalism as the beginning of modern depravity 3. The cult of action for action’s sake - It's not enough not to be racist - you must be actively anti-racist 4. Disagreement is treason - See the way TERFs are treated 5. Fear of difference - Wokeism is threatened by cultural forces it defines as reactionary 6. Appeal to social frustration - Inequality is blamed on oppression 8. The obsession with a plot - Wokeism sees white supremacist power structures at work everywhere 9. The enemy is both strong and weak - Those with white privilege simultaneously hold all the power and suffer from "fragility" 10. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy - "Silence is violence" 11. Contempt for the weak - The traditional working class are demonised 12. Everybody is educated to become a hero - Revolutionaries are idolised 13. Machismo and weaponry - Terrorism against those coded as oppressors is glorified or excused 14. Selective populism - Wokeism uses emotional appeals to the people, but only the right kind of people 15. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak - Wokeism redefines language to suit its ideology
While PB wanks itself up to its usual ad absurdum froth, I couldn't help but combine my own list, thus:
Why Prince Charles/King Charles III is obviously a fascist
1. The cult of tradition - Obvious. 2. The rejection of modernism - See Poundbury. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake - You have to call him sir. And approach from the front. And bow/curtsey. 4. Disagreement is treason - BY DEFINITION. 5. Fear of difference - Dislikes pens in the wrong place. BASTARD PENS! 6. Appeal to social frustration - Various charity work for the poor. 8. The obsession with a plot - Obsessed with modernising the monarchy. 9. The enemy is both strong and weak - Architects. Their work is rubbish. And everywhere. 10. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy - He is the head of all the armed forces. 11. Contempt for the weak - He has lots of medals. You don't. Peasant. 12. Everybody is educated to become a hero - Prizes history and heroic tales. 13. Machismo and weaponry - He is the head of all the armed forces. 14. Selective populism - Has massive appeal to Royalists. There are plates with his head on it. Even Hitler didn't do that. 15. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak - Speaks in a convoluted syntax not easily explicable to the uninitiated. EG "carbuncle".
Next week. Why hamsters are fascist. BASTARDS HAMSTERS!
Sorry, but this is bullshit.
There are absolutely Nazi china sets with Hitler's head and other Nazi memorabilia on them.
Meant to be quoting @leon but I messed up the quotes.
Woke is ALL about judging people by the color of their skin. It is obsessed with race and colour, to a pathological degree. If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist and there is nothing you can do about it, you are privileged and must forever apologize (but you can never apologize enough), and if you are black you are ALWAYS oppressed and exploited and the descendant of slaves even if you are a billionaire and don’t even notice race, thus you are infantilised, insultingly
Thing is, if you stop being so fragile about it all so much of what you say dissipates.
“If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist…” Racist yes, but you interpret this as evil and sinful because you have such an immature view of what racism is. It isn’t this horrible bogeyman that must be avoided at all costs. It is a simple fact that we as humans have by necessity a too-narrow view of the world and so advocate for social policies, laws etc that fit our view of the world. One short eg: schools are set up to better meet the need of white rich kids than poor non-white ones. That’s racist, but not in a way that I as a teacher should feel guilty about. I should just bother to learn about it and then work to try to make the bits I have control over less racist.
Accept racism as a fact of life not an evil, sinful thing. It is only your own fragility that sees it in this way.
“…you are privileged and must forever apologise…” Yes and no. White people are privileged in one way. Men in another. Rich people in another. Privately educated in another. Etc etc. some of us (myself included, experience a myriad of privileges). Other white people have privilege because of their skin colour but have been utterly shafted in other ways (often class or poverty) and are obviously in a different position.
And no you don’t need to apologise. I doubt anyone really gives a fuck about your apologies. Instead, use your privilege to make your little part of the world a less unequal place.
I do agree with your last point, though. Wokeness or whatever you want to call it, in the hands of mediocre brains, becomes incredibly patronising and disempowers black, trans, poor, working class etc people.
For all your trolling on here, you’re not an idiot. You can see what I’m saying is right. What anti-woke really comes down to is privileged people not wanting to give up their privilege.
An interesting idea from Hunt. Cunningly, it conveys the impression that most benefit claimants are skiving, whereas of course they are mostly: 1. Retired (12.5m), 2. Disabled or sick (2.2m), 3. Working but in low pay (2.1m)
Anyhow, Hunt's idea seems to be concentrating on the 300,000 who fail to get a job after 18 months. For many of them HMG finding them a work placement would be potentially helpful.
I just wonder where they are going to find willing employers to offer these placements; quite a lot of these long-term UC claimants no sensible employer would offer a job too, in my experience.
Everybody to be assigned a job. Massive government expenditure to keep the economy going. State control of minutiae... oh god, why don't we just go full Soviet and get it over with? At least the USSR built houses and put people in orbit. We can't even get a Reliant Robin into LEO.
(All together now. The Government literally does not know how to run a country. Not in a partisan or silly way. They just don't know. They are pressing buttons at random at this point.)
I was rather wondering whether Hunt would create government jobs to provide these placements. Not sure that will save the public purse much though.
It rather reminds me of Spud's job interview in Trainspotting.
Fascism need not come into this. With the current Govt the issue is simple competence. Since they are useless and their performance has been the definition of ineptitude on almost every issue we can leave aside the hyperbole. (But I won't - since I enjoy it!)
Good grief. The obsession of those on the right with 'woke' whatever that is, is truly something to behold.
It's akin to McCarthy's 'reds under the bed' or the C17th fear of 'popery'.
Perhaps, but no worse than lefties who claim that all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish" rather than practical people who might notice that Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall..
1. I don't see many any lefties on here claiming that 'all people who vote Tory are "evil" and "selfish"' but I see a lots of PB righties banging on about 'woke',
2. 'Labour politicians are largely shite and (even by comparison with the Tories), couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall' Well, it's a view. But I think when the electorate consider the period 1997 to 2010 (29.5% real GDP growth) with 2010 to 2023 (21.6% real GDP growth) they might conclude the whelk stall was rather better run under Labour.
@Andy_JS presents as a very reasonable, thoughtful man, whose views are various and hard to pin to a mast. Yet when I asked him what his worldview was he said: anti-woke. I thought that a very odd position. I'm not particularly woke, but to define one's entire worldview as 'anti-woke' seems a narrow outlook at best.
Did you ask him to define the 'woke' he was anti?
My guess is it will consist of a series of the most extreme, and rare, examples of stupidity that are so far round the political horseshoe as to be back on the other side. The sort of nonsense that no sane person supports and certainly not people like myself, yet I am often classed as 'woke' here on PB.
As I said earlier, I find the whole 'woke' obsession rather curious and slightly disturbing.
Since some of you here are fond of the famous Gerald the Gorilla sketch, I thought I'd share this bit of rot I came across while searching for a link to the sketch to send to a friend who'd never seen it. It is, at last count, the third highest search result in Google for the sketch:
TL;DR, it features a man dressed as a gorilla, which it argues is a metaphor for black people, and when you show a man in a gorilla suit it is *always* a metaphor for black people, whether intended or not.
The article references critical race theory numerous times, as well as their 'outrage' at the sketch.
I would politely suggest that anyone who sees black people whenever they see a gorilla might be a tad racist themselves, and to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a gorilla is just a gorilla.
Never mind the fact that Not the Nine O'Clock News was also responsible for the Constable Savage sketch, a pretty searing indictment of the institutional racism of the police at the time.
But that is the woke mind virus. *Everything* must be viewed through the lens of critical race theory, which is really just Habermas's idea of power structures rewritten to be about the colour of your skin. Nothing else matters. Just victim and victimiser. A binary worldview where one is either a victim or not based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege".
It's worth noting that the link I shared is also hawking diversity and inclusion training courses.
To your point: Why are people so obsessed with woke? Because it's a parasitical entity spreading throughout schools, offices and governmental institutions of the land. It is a cancer that is spreading and metastasising, the end result of which as we are currently seeing is the rise of antisemitism and the "othering" of Jews, as pointed out by Bari Weiss:
"Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading. Little wonder people are so obsessed with the spread.
I appreciate the fulsome answer, thanks. Clearly the idea that Gerald the Gorilla is racist is nonsense. I suggest it would be an extreme view, not shared by very many at all.
Should it be resisted? Yes. Does it mean "Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading? Does it bollocks.
Firstly, if this example is your definition of 'woke' then none of us lefties on here are woke. OTOH if we PB lefties are all woke, your example or errant nonsense is not woke, it's an extreme view held by a very small minority.
You can't have it both ways.
On the one hand, the link I shared is an outlier - nobody *sane* could think that sketch is a racist dig at black people.
On the other hand, it's also published by a company that delivers DEI courses to workplaces. If you've ever met the DEI mob at work, or in a university, or elsewhere, you'd know that this is the logical end point of critical race theory - viewing everything through a racial lens.
Until today, I would have called it nothing more than an outlier and dismissed it. But it's also a day where The Guardian had to take down Bin Laden's anti-semitic, homophobic and anti-western tirade because too many people were *agreeing* with it.
Woke goes beyond being PC, it goes beyond diversity. As I say, it is a rejigging of Habermas's theories along racial lines. And the extent and depth to which it has permeated our culture is deeply worrying, as the Bari Weiss article I linked to points out.
You're right, by the above definition, there aren't many "woke" people on PB. That's because most people on PB have a brain and are capable of critical thought. But woke isn't about thought - it's a belief, a religious fervour, a kind of fundamentalism that accepts no quarter, no debate, no opposing views. In such a context, I don't think defining yourself as "anti-woke" is particularly surprising.
If the people who define themselves as woke are mostly not considered woke by the anti-woke isn't it about time we started using different and more precise language?
I would argue that woke = subscribes (uncritically) to critical race theory, which is my more precise definition. There are probably wider definitions, including the trans issue - but fundamentally it is about dividing the world into victim or victimiser, a rejigging of Habermas's base-and-superstructure concept. You are labelled as either victim or victimiser based on an arbitrary definition of "privilege". It is a world without nuance, or context, or critical thought.
You can define woke how you like. Many others define it as simply being cordial to each other.
If you think critical race theory is such a problem, you should really use better language or you won't have much chance of convincing people who understand woke differently.
I would call being cordial to other people "basic human decency". Woke is something else. It is a political ideology that divides the world into victim and victimiser based on arbitrary values. It's a bastardised derivation of Marxian thought, substituting class consciousness for identity politics. It is a binary world where you are victim or victimiser.
I accept that other definitions are available, but this is the definition that appears to me to most closely match empirically observable behaviours - hence its ability to resolve the odd contradiction inherent in "queers for Palestine" and other anomalies.
Talking of laughably bad...it sounds like the final season of the Crown is just that.
Not something I watch, but sounds like the most recent reasons have got further away from just telling the truth, and the worse it got.
Or we are just more familiar with more recent times, whereas we have to take The Crown's word for what Winston Churchill did or did not do about fog.
I seemed to remember that the writer in the early season was credited with getting most of it right by sticking closely to historic texts...but seems to have taken a lot more liabilities with more recent seasons, some of which driven by their personal hatred of Thatcher but also probably falling for the common trait of must make it "bigger" every season.
Are there no polls out tonight showing sub-20% Tory support?
Disappointing.
A lull in the battlefield before the weekend sunday news polls come in.
Time to pause, take stock and perhaps order some more fine popcorn?
Pretty sure Sunday’s polls will be lower. The trough will be fieldwork on Wed and Thurs.
I also think Ref will peak this week. It’s been the main beneficiary. Once the news moves on to benefits sanctions and tax cuts Ref won’t be so relevant and it’ll be back to Con-Lab swings.
Stop The War info/template letter for parents to send to their children’s school saying they won’t be in today as they’re marching for Palestine
“ How to organise a school strike:
Gather a group of dedicated parents/teenagers in your area and create a WhatsApp group. Fill out this Google form and we will try and put you in touch with others in your area. Pick a central location in your area to have a rally on Friday morning. Create an announcements WhatsApp group with admin-only posting rights. Add other organisers as admins, and use a join link to share widely so others in the area can join it. Set the group description (template below) with the details of your strike, and use this group to let people know about the details of the strike and to share the resources below. Fill out this Google form to let us know about your school strike so we can help you with a graphic & poster, advertise it nationally including making a Facebook event for you, put you in touch with local activists and help/advise with anything else.”
So from your own link, kids taking unauthorised absence. That does not require the support of headteachers and local leaders as claimed at all, simply parents, or perhaps even just kids.
"We’ve been assured by those working in schools that whilst this would count as an unauthorised absence, a child can have up to four days in a row unauthorised and would need 10 in a short amount of time to be fined. Please do check your own school policy."
Lovely. Viva Multiculture
Look, its important to be accurate when making such claims, regardless of whether the kids should be off school or not or the marches or multiculturalism are good things, otherwise there is no point debating.
The process they suggest is explicitly not getting the support of headteachers as claimed, it is parents informing the school of unauthorised absence.
Well, the parents are obviously supporting it, I don’t doubt the ‘community leaders’ are backing it, and the schools turn a blind eye because it’s more bother than it’s worth trying to tackle it - they know, and don’t try to stop it.
What do you expect the headteacher to do? Go round at 7am to each house and kidnap the kids?
If parents don't send kids to school its on the parents whether the kids are going on a march, skiing or sitting on the sofa watching homes under the hammer. Only if its persistent the schools can get involved.
So no - it is also wrong to claim the schools are turning a blind eye, they have no power here.
Well I didn’t actually claim it myself. I agree, the teachers at the schools generally aren’t Muslims so don’t share the agenda. But parts of Tower Hamlets are a parallel society.
Personally I’m looking forward to photos in the papers of a sea of kids with placards demanding “Free Plasticene”.
Talking of laughably bad...it sounds like the final season of the Crown is just that.
Not something I watch, but sounds like the most recent reasons have got further away from just telling the truth, and the worse it got.
Depress me. What have they done this time?
I just know the Guardian give it 1 star, Telegraph 2 stars....nobody seems to think its any good. I think the criticism is that it is more obsessed with telling tales about Diana than the Daily Express.
Deltapoll on the Rwanda policy - Support 46%, Oppose 33%
YouGov on whether the Rwanda policy will work - Yes 28%, No 52%
So 18% support the Rwanda policy but don't think it will work! Anyway, I think these two pollings explain exactly why the Rwanda cavalry is unlikely to come to Mr Sunak's rescue. They appreciate the performance but in the end even a tidy chunk of the policy's supporters know it is not serious politics - let alone a solution to the immigration/small boats issue
Talking of laughably bad...it sounds like the final season of the Crown is just that.
Not something I watch, but sounds like the most recent reasons have got further away from just telling the truth, and the worse it got.
Depress me. What have they done this time?
I just know the Guardian give it 1 star, Telegraph 2 stars....nobody seems to think its any good. I think the criticism is that it is more obsessed with telling tales about Diana than the Daily Express.
A pity. I didn't get to see much of the last series, and what I did seemed a bit bitty. Some of the cast were good (Major, Charles), some weren't. I still liked it, but it wasn't compulsive.
Did the government actively try and lose the Rwanda case ?
Because they could easily have had a Treaty done with Rwanda . People often berate the HOL but take a look at what they said re this issue .
For those interested try reading David Allen Green where he discusses the ruling , he also includes the stark warnings by the HOL made to the government about not having a Treaty.
Talking of laughably bad...it sounds like the final season of the Crown is just that.
Not something I watch, but sounds like the most recent reasons have got further away from just telling the truth, and the worse it got.
Depress me. What have they done this time?
I just know the Guardian give it 1 star, Telegraph 2 stars....nobody seems to think its any good. I think the criticism is that it is more obsessed with telling tales about Diana than the Daily Express.
The writer - Morgan - was at Leeds University in my year. 1985.
As a fellow graduate of the finest higher educational establishment in western Europe, I wont have a word said against.
I realise this is missing the point but why is the cabbie recording (let alone posting to X) what sounds like a private phone call?
That’s a road cam - for accidents/incidents. Most of them record sound in the vehicle as well.
Quite a few black cabs have internal security cameras as well.
There is a reason the glass partitions are made of toughened glass…
In a black cab, there is a sort of intercom between driver and passengers (with a red light). I don't know the precise ins and outs but suspect "sources close to" the ranting passenger could put in a complaint to TfL.
Deltapoll on the Rwanda policy - Support 46%, Oppose 33%
YouGov on whether the Rwanda policy will work - Yes 28%, No 52%
So 18% support the Rwanda policy but don't think it will work! Anyway, I think these two pollings explain exactly why the Rwanda cavalry is unlikely to come to Mr Sunak's rescue. They appreciate the performance but in the end even a tidy chunk of the policy's supporters know it is not serious politics - let alone a solution to the immigration/small boats issue
There’s been polling on Rwanda previously and I think support is down from before (I’ll need to check). If so, I expect it’s probably about effectiveness not ethics. People don’t like policies that fail.
I realise this is missing the point but why is the cabbie recording (let alone posting to X) what sounds like a private phone call?
That’s a road cam - for accidents/incidents. Most of them record sound in the vehicle as well.
Quite a few black cabs have internal security cameras as well.
There is a reason the glass partitions are made of toughened glass…
In a black cab, there is a sort of intercom between driver and passengers (with a red light). I don't know the precise ins and outs but suspect "sources close to" the ranting passenger could put in a complaint to TfL.
Talking of laughably bad...it sounds like the final season of the Crown is just that.
Not something I watch, but sounds like the most recent reasons have got further away from just telling the truth, and the worse it got.
I'm sure it is absolute garbage but I love it and will still watch it. Everyone needs an a completely trashy TV programme to watch, and for me it's the Crown, sorry.
Talking of laughably bad...it sounds like the final season of the Crown is just that.
Not something I watch, but sounds like the most recent reasons have got further away from just telling the truth, and the worse it got.
I'm sure it is absolute garbage but I love it and will still watch it. Everyone needs an a completely trashy TV programme to watch, and for me it's the Crown, sorry.
Escape to the country for me. Dinner time treat. That or a place in the sun.
Comments
Re Zero Hours, my solution has always been they are fine with caveats, in fact there are people who really like them. The number one issue has been solved which was banning exclusivity. The next reform I would make is sure you can have people on zero hours, but if you employ them for more than x months, you are legally bound to offer them a job with guaranteed hours.
That still gives employers flexibility during busy times or to trial people, but also stops businesses totally built on the labour of ZHCs workers.
Should it be resisted? Yes. Does it mean "Woke" is a cancer, and it's spreading? Does it bollocks.
Firstly, if this example is your definition of 'woke' then none of us lefties on here are woke. OTOH if we PB lefties are all woke, your example or errant nonsense is not woke, it's an extreme view held by a very small minority.
You can't have it both ways.
So basically he cleansed his skin to be nice and fresh, and then wanked himself stupid. I assume he also used the funds to pay for the tissues, but that's speculation on my part. And ejaculation on his pa[That's enough - Ed]
I recommend you do so on your last day (of employment)
I never really got the Greta love. Being kind, sure, people like a charismatic performer, and being unkind people also like articulate and passionate child preachers as a kind of circus act too, and I cannot fault the effectiveness of advancing her messaging, but was any of it really that amazing?
On the other hand, it's also published by a company that delivers DEI courses to workplaces. If you've ever met the DEI mob at work, or in a university, or elsewhere, you'd know that this is the logical end point of critical race theory - viewing everything through a racial lens.
Until today, I would have called it nothing more than an outlier and dismissed it. But it's also a day where The Guardian had to take down Bin Laden's anti-semitic, homophobic and anti-western tirade because too many people were *agreeing* with it.
Woke goes beyond being PC, it goes beyond diversity. As I say, it is a rejigging of Habermas's theories along racial lines. And the extent and depth to which it has permeated our culture is deeply worrying, as the Bari Weiss article I linked to points out.
You're right, by the above definition, there aren't many "woke" people on PB. That's because most people on PB have a brain and are capable of critical thought. But woke isn't about thought - it's a belief, a religious fervour, a kind of fundamentalism that accepts no quarter, no debate, no opposing views. In such a context, I don't think defining yourself as "anti-woke" is particularly surprising.
The second issue is who pays for the bill; it doesn’t seem reasonable that we taxpayers should do so.
Disappointing.
Woops.
Since about 2010, I've been able to log on to my mobile provider's website and set a "max/cut-off point" for my bill, which I have set at about £70 a month. If for whatever reason it goes over that, my phone stops working until I manually go into my account and clear the limit.
That should be the standard for all work issued devices. Especially when the person being issued the device doesn't know the tariff on the phone, and probably reasonably assumes their bill will be no more than £100 a month, as most contracts these days include international roaming.
The error here was in the IT department letting him rack up an 11k bill without the very easy one-click step of setting a limit that needs to be overridden manually.
Also, you don't need to update to a new sim to set an account level block on spend - that's done by the account owner with a login and password, not the sim.
Looks like a very obvious case of an IT dept fail to me. Putting a block on spend above a certain level really is cost management 101. The same reason I can't spend 11k on my old company credit card. There needs to be a hard limit on how much your employees can spend without it raising red flags and requiring further approval. If nothing else - what if the device / credit card gets nicked? Hard limits should be baked in for that reason alone.
https://www.1pmobile.com/data-25GB-SIM
The Economist reckons this makes for a fairer market:
https://archive.is/IMWkk
Credit where it's due to the SNP. Stephen Flynn's amendment to the King's Speech was political and theatrical genius. The Labour Party torn asunder, Lefties calling for Starmer's nuts and Sunak's shocking speech brushed under the carpet in the hubbub. The SNP are patriots to the core in their clear support of the Conservative and Unionist Party Government of the United Kingdom.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/16/uk-government-to-present-full-law-to-set-aside-supreme-court-rwanda-decision
LAbour should just legislate to force UK cellphone providers to make roaming free. Small painless win for HMG.
It is one of the Brexit benefits that the previous £45 a day data cap (unless waived explicitly) has been scrapped, although I am not sure that they ever applied to business contracts. (They should too.)
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8649/
"This included a cap on data usage abroad of £45+VAT per day (unless the customer expressly agreed to continue) and a requirement on operators to inform customers when they have reached 80% and 100% of their data allowance. Operators also had an obligation to inform customer how to avoid inadvertent roaming costs.
These protections expired on 30 June 2022 in accordance with the ‘sunset clause’ in the 2012 EU Roaming Regulation."
https://www.lebara.co.uk/en/best-sim-only-deals/p/441177.html
If you think critical race theory is such a problem, you should really use better language or you won't have much chance of convincing people who understand woke differently.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo205550079.html
"In The Two-Parent Privilege, Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline has led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, economic: when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. Studies show that these effects are today starker, and more unevenly distributed, than ever before. Kearney examines the underlying causes of the marriage decline in the US and draws lessons for how the US can reverse this trend to ensure the country’s future prosperity."
I mention this because I think the argument in it should be considered by anyone thinking about, for example, racial disparities, and increasing economic inequality. Quite possibly in the UK, as well as the US.
The author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Kearney
I am not sure it will have moved the dial, but it allowed Sunak to avoid any critical analysis of his disgraceful speech. But I suppose a one-upmanship win, is a win North or South of the Border. Cans of Tennant's Extra all 'round.
Sorry if this as been linked to dozens of times but it is odd that it passed Sunak by....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoD1rHGttI
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23928348.ex-labour-mp-slams-grovelling-anas-sarwar-mps-vote-ceasefire/
If they should then release it onto twitter, well that's a different matter...but then there seems a free for all on basically posting any video of anybody for any reason on social media.
https://youtu.be/OwDmg74rhCw?feature=shared
There are absolutely Nazi china sets with Hitler's head and other Nazi memorabilia on them.
“If you are white you are intrinsically evil and sinful and racist…” Racist yes, but you interpret this as evil and sinful because you have such an immature view of what racism is. It isn’t this horrible bogeyman that must be avoided at all costs. It is a simple fact that we as humans have by necessity a too-narrow view of the world and so advocate for social policies, laws etc that fit our view of the world. One short eg: schools are set up to better meet the need of white rich kids than poor non-white ones. That’s racist, but not in a way that I as a teacher should feel guilty about. I should just bother to learn about it and then work to try to make the bits I have control over less racist.
Accept racism as a fact of life not an evil, sinful thing. It is only your own fragility that sees it in this way.
“…you are privileged and must forever apologise…” Yes and no. White people are privileged in one way. Men in another. Rich people in another. Privately educated in another. Etc etc. some of us (myself included, experience a myriad of privileges). Other white people have privilege because of their skin colour but have been utterly shafted in other ways (often class or poverty) and are obviously in a different position.
And no you don’t need to apologise. I doubt anyone really gives a fuck about your apologies. Instead, use your privilege to make your little part of the world a less
unequal place.
I do agree with your last point, though. Wokeness or whatever you want to call it, in the hands of mediocre brains, becomes incredibly patronising and disempowers
black, trans, poor, working class etc people.
For all your trolling on here, you’re not an idiot. You can see what I’m saying is right. What anti-woke really comes down to is privileged people not wanting to give up their privilege.
https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-deepfake-investment-scheme/
So either he gave his kids the passcode or…
No
pause
Oh yeh, I'm a perfectionist."
The classic interview q and a.
Not something I watch, but sounds like the most recent reasons have got further away from just telling the truth, and the worse it got.
I accept that other definitions are available, but this is the definition that appears to me to most closely match empirically observable behaviours - hence its ability to resolve the odd contradiction inherent in "queers for Palestine" and other anomalies.
No intention to go further. Only the first two seasons were any good and it started going downhill in the third.
Time to pause, take stock and perhaps order some more fine popcorn?
Quite a few black cabs have internal security cameras as well.
There is a reason the glass partitions are made of toughened glass…
I also think Ref will peak this week. It’s been the main beneficiary. Once the news moves on to benefits sanctions and tax cuts Ref won’t be so relevant and it’ll be back to Con-Lab swings.
A breakaway group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators scaled the Royal Artillery Memorial in London's Hyde Park Corner on Wednesday night.
Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said their actions were "inflammatory" but did not break any laws.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67442917
Some might suggest that the police don't seem to look very hard...Sarah Everard vigil they seemed to be quick on the draw.
YouGov on whether the Rwanda policy will work - Yes 28%, No 52%
So 18% support the Rwanda policy but don't think it will work! Anyway, I think these two pollings explain exactly why the Rwanda cavalry is unlikely to come to Mr Sunak's rescue. They appreciate the performance but in the end even a tidy chunk of the policy's supporters know it is not serious politics - let alone a solution to the immigration/small boats issue
Because they could easily have had a Treaty done with Rwanda . People often berate the HOL but take a look at what they said re this issue .
For those interested try reading David Allen Green where he discusses the ruling , he also includes the stark warnings by the HOL made to the government about not having a Treaty.
As a fellow graduate of the finest higher educational establishment in western Europe, I wont have a word said against.