Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
Would surely lose at the highest court of the land (UK supreme court). I am NOT a Scottish citizen, nor do I live in Scotland. They should have no legal power over me.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
Let’s go to the source (HMRC)
EP195 Supplies of training, or end-point assessment, which are paid by government funding including the apprenticeship levy, are exempt from VAT. This includes additional payments (see paragraphs EP98 to EP105). Prices entered onto the ILR must not include VAT.
So as student loans are from government funding - they would be excluded, and following you logic only those paying directly would be subject to it.
Hence I quite like you idea as you’ve just raised a few more quid for the Government without actually achieving your aim of getting all students to pay
The curious one is that FE and sixth form colleges are caught in the VAT system.
It's not just curious, it's outrageous. Colleges have campaigned on this for years, to no avail. There's absolutely no justification for post-16 education in schools and in colleges not being on a level playing field as regards VAT.
What we need to talk about is s4 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (S) Act 2021 which is due to come into force on 1st April 2024. This is apparently too long for a single post.
4 Offences of stirring up hatred (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b) either— (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— ... (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The characteristics are— (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.
You will still be allowed to hate women, though.
Seriously though, it would be an excellent topic for a thread header, especially if written by a Scots lawyer. Are you available?
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
Does that mean we can report MalcolmG for throwing turnips at the english?
Potentially, yes. It is difficult to guess what the courts might make of this yet.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
I don't think the class privilege reinforced by the likes of Eton is mitigated by a few more middle class parents using lower tier private schools.
Of course it's right to say this policy is no silver bullet for that either. There's no quick and easy way to fix something so deeply embedded.
What about by councils using private schools for children with EHCPs, now at over 50% of the intake in some schools?
This might be mitigated of course by councils taking such schools over. But they're very resistant to doing so. Taxpayers and the DfE both get very stuffy about it.
Interesting. So councils pay the private school fees for those children? Does that work on a VFM basis as compared to provision in the state sector?
Probably, when you consider that it also makes life much easier for everyone - the child with the EHCP, who gets a quieter environment and smaller classes, the teachers in the state sector, who don't have to deal with those complex needs so can concentrate on the others.
However, I believe the point is that parents whose children have an EHCP have the right to chose where their child goes. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the private sector is a popular choice?
Not that hard a question imo. Spend per pupil is much higher there. Other reasons too, no doubt, but that's the crux of it.
Um, parents of children with an EHCP *don't* have the right to choose where their child goes any more than any other child. Most children with EHCPs are iun mainstream education. And if a child with an EHCP is excluded from mainstream education, they don't get to choose their alternative provision - the providers get to see the EHCP and indicate whether they would be willing to accept the child. So there are many children who are out of education because a) some providerswon't accept them and b) the funding for the alternative provision sector is so poor, there aren't places at the providers who would accept them.
Surprising that it is still legal for any organisation to refuse membership on the basis of gender.
You'd ban the Women's Institute ?
Quite. I'd be wary of banning such clubs and societies. Recently at the level of cricket that my ageing body aspires to, we have seen more and more girls and women playing in men's teams (they were never actually mens teams, but in practice that has been the situation for hundreds of years at club level. On the one hand its great - spreading the love of the greatest game etc. On another level - one of the reasons for still playing at 51 is the banter with your mates. And with women there its different. Not worse necessarily, and don't get the impression of old misogenistic dinosaurs, but its different.
I believe that a group of men have the right to form a club that excludes women. I believe that a group of women have the right to form a club that excludes men.
Thats equality.
Equality of discrimination, certainly. Where do you stand on Cretans who say all Cretans are liars?
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
There has been no inland canal freight in this country since 1981, and if we're talking about the narrow canal network it would be since the 1960s.
I think the only canal still carrying freight now is the Manchester Ship Canal, and it's not substantial.
When I was travelling the England canal network (2011-2012) there were large (for English canals) boats delivering gas to Leeds pretty much daily. That was on the Aire and Calder Navigation and I would be very surprised if that has stopped. Although it is a "Navigation" significant parts of it are canal.
The local canal (Don Navigation) was upgraded as late as the 1980s but sadly a lot of the industry that would have used it has closed down.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
For god's sake don't introduce logic into it all.
Like you I couldn't care less it sounds vaguely right not to have a tax exemption for the most privileged folk in the land (bless 'em). I think however that the (un?)intended consequences of the effect on the state sector will be one of those elements that those involved curse to high heaven while the Lab politicians put it away as job done.
What I wonder do the state sector heads think about the possible influx of more students into their midsts.
As each of them will arrive with five grand+ funding and, presumably, reasonably engaged parents, most heads will be delighted unless they are heavily over subscribed and Tristram only got in because said parents came to the admissions appeal armed with a top barrister…
Yes that is probably true. And, without making any assumptions, perhaps those heads might be concerned at the standards those parents had previously expected and might expect at their new school.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
For god's sake don't introduce logic into it all.
Like you I couldn't care less it sounds vaguely right not to have a tax exemption for the most privileged folk in the land (bless 'em). I think however that the (un?)intended consequences of the effect on the state sector will be one of those elements that those involved curse to high heaven while the Lab politicians put it away as job done.
What I wonder do the state sector heads think about the possible influx of more students into their midsts.
As each of them will arrive with five grand+ funding and, presumably, reasonably engaged parents, most heads will be delighted unless they are heavily over subscribed and Tristram only got in because said parents came to the admissions appeal armed with a top barrister…
The net effect will be to push the poorer deciles out of living in the cachement area of good schools and an increase in rent/house prices in those area's.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
Public school endowments help fund scholarships and bursaries, so that wouldn't be a good policy either
I assure you that most of our public schools are perfectly capable of funding scholarships and bursaries without their endowments. Eton uses its endowments mostly to pay for maintaining its buildings, for example.
A more pertinent point is that many of our public schools don't really need to charge fees at all. Clifton could survive for decades without charging anyone a penny, it owns so much land.
Not if they then have to divert extra funds to fund the maintenance of their historic buildings.
Of course many schools, including Clifton, also share some of their sports facilities with the local community and professional sports clubs
For many - replace with some or if you were actually honest a few
Not all public schools are equal. My old school accepted lots of kids from the local area, and the headmaster had a policy of accepting some kids who had been thrown out of school - as long as they passed entrance. With one exception I know of, they turned their lives around.
It also felt like the heart of the community - particularly considering the two famous businesses that dominated the area.
Could they have done more for the community? Perhaps; I was outside it. Would the community have missed it? From talikng to locals at the time; yes.
Round here one of the worst secondary schools is ex private schools that was foisted on to the department of education when the finances started to fall apart
What we need to talk about is s4 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (S) Act 2021 which is due to come into force on 1st April 2024. This is apparently too long for a single post.
4 Offences of stirring up hatred (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b) either— (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— ... (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The characteristics are— (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.
I was going to wait for April Fools Day to bring this up.
It's shocking. The SNP are plunging the county into a form of authoritarian dystopia.
What push back is happening in Scotland over this. Will it damage the SNP electorally?
Who knows? The relevant Minister is promising that the police will investigate every complaint, a promise they do not make, for example, in respect of burglary. They can also record any such alleged incident even when they take the view that an actual offence has not occurred.
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
I mean yes and thanks for the info but it is littered with "reasonable person" and doesn't this usually mean that vaguely sensible decisions are reached.
History of court cases such as the robin hood airport tweet suggest no they won't reach vaguely sensible decisions
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
Would surely lose at the highest court of the land (UK supreme court). I am NOT a Scottish citizen, nor do I live in Scotland. They should have no legal power over me.
It's a terrifying state of affairs. Basically a snitcher's charter with shades of Orwell's 1984. Even if there are never any actual prosecutions under this law - the effect (indeed it's aim) is to corral everyone into an approved way of 'thinking'. In effect, a new blasphemy law. It is those who support this law that are doing the hating.
What we need to talk about is s4 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (S) Act 2021 which is due to come into force on 1st April 2024. This is apparently too long for a single post.
4 Offences of stirring up hatred (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b) either— (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— ... (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The characteristics are— (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.
I was going to wait for April Fools Day to bring this up.
It's shocking. The SNP are plunging the county into a form of authoritarian dystopia.
What push back is happening in Scotland over this. Will it damage the SNP electorally?
Who knows? The relevant Minister is promising that the police will investigate every complaint, a promise they do not make, for example, in respect of burglary. They can also record any such alleged incident even when they take the view that an actual offence has not occurred.
As a side not apropos of the conversation the other day...that allegation was investigated or not will then show up on an enhanced dbs check
What we need to talk about is s4 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (S) Act 2021 which is due to come into force on 1st April 2024. This is apparently too long for a single post.
4 Offences of stirring up hatred (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b) either— (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— ... (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The characteristics are— (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.
I was going to wait for April Fools Day to bring this up.
It's shocking. The SNP are plunging the county into a form of authoritarian dystopia.
What push back is happening in Scotland over this. Will it damage the SNP electorally?
Who knows? The relevant Minister is promising that the police will investigate every complaint, a promise they do not make, for example, in respect of burglary. They can also record any such alleged incident even when they take the view that an actual offence has not occurred.
As a side not apropos of the conversation the other day...that allegation was investigated or not will then show up on an enhanced dbs check
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
For god's sake don't introduce logic into it all.
Like you I couldn't care less it sounds vaguely right not to have a tax exemption for the most privileged folk in the land (bless 'em). I think however that the (un?)intended consequences of the effect on the state sector will be one of those elements that those involved curse to high heaven while the Lab politicians put it away as job done.
What I wonder do the state sector heads think about the possible influx of more students into their midsts.
As each of them will arrive with five grand+ funding and, presumably, reasonably engaged parents, most heads will be delighted unless they are heavily over subscribed and Tristram only got in because said parents came to the admissions appeal armed with a top barrister…
The net effect will be to push the poorer deciles out of living in the cachement area of good schools and an increase in rent/house prices in those area's.
Which as I pointed out earlier on is just about the only argument that can be made apart the policy but it won’t actually impact that many people and for those who live in the catchment area the greater demand for their houses would result in them being happy.
The problem is that it’s a popular policy where the counter attack is nuanced and doesn’t actually apply to that many people. And as shown above some people may like the idea their house is worth more
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
Does that mean we can report MalcolmG for throwing turnips at the english?
Potentially, yes. It is difficult to guess what the courts might make of this yet.
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
Does that mean we can report MalcolmG for throwing turnips at the english?
We can also report you for throwing turnips at MalcolmG, even though I assume you don’t live in Scotland. It’s going to be unworkable in practice, but not before e.g. Stonewall try to get e.g. J K Rowling or Joanna Cherry charged.
@christopherhope BREAKING Rishi Sunak is facing another by-election in a red wall seat after Scott Benton resigned today as a MP, GB News can reveal. Benton, the independent MP for Blackpool South MP, was already facing a recall petition and potentially a by-election after MPs have approved a motion to suspend from the Commons for 35 days. Benton lost the Tory whip last April after suggesting to undercover reporters at The Times that he would be willing to break lobbying rules for money. An independent panel upheld a decision by the Standards Committee, which Mr Benton had appealed against. In a letter today, Benton said: "It's with a heavy heart that I have written to the Chancellor this morning to tender my resignation as your MP. "I'd like to thank the hundreds of residents who have sent supportive messages, cards and letters over the last few months and who have urged me to continue and fight the next election." Benton has previously said he was "deeply disappointed" and claimed there had been a "lack of integrity" throughout the process, which was "prone" to leaks. In 2019, Benton won a majority of 3,690 in a seat that had voted Labour since 1997.
The interest here will be who comes second: CON or REF.
If Reform can't come at least second in 67.5% Leave Blackpool on current polls, where can they?
Well... in 62.4% Leave Wellingborough, Reform got third place and 13.0%. And that was with just about the worst possible Conservative candidate.
Reform's probelm in a nutshell. They hurt the Conservative vote everywhere but probably can't win anywhere. Their core vote- grumpy old men who don't like the way the world is going and especially don't like their own decrepitude- is too dispersed.
What we need to talk about is s4 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (S) Act 2021 which is due to come into force on 1st April 2024. This is apparently too long for a single post.
4 Offences of stirring up hatred (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b) either— (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— ... (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The characteristics are— (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.
You will still be allowed to hate women, though.
Seriously though, it would be an excellent topic for a thread header, especially if written by a Scots lawyer. Are you available?
I have thought about this but given my current employment I think the answer has to be no.
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
Does that mean we can report MalcolmG for throwing turnips at the english?
Potentially, yes. It is difficult to guess what the courts might make of this yet.
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
Does that mean we can report MalcolmG for throwing turnips at the english?
We can also report you for throwing turnips at MalcolmG, even though I assume you don’t live in Scotland. It’s going to be unworkable in practice, but not before e.g. Stonewall try to get e.g. J K Rowling or Joanna Cherry charged.
I have never thrown a turnip in my life...I don't waste food
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
For god's sake don't introduce logic into it all.
Like you I couldn't care less it sounds vaguely right not to have a tax exemption for the most privileged folk in the land (bless 'em). I think however that the (un?)intended consequences of the effect on the state sector will be one of those elements that those involved curse to high heaven while the Lab politicians put it away as job done.
What I wonder do the state sector heads think about the possible influx of more students into their midsts.
As each of them will arrive with five grand+ funding and, presumably, reasonably engaged parents, most heads will be delighted unless they are heavily over subscribed and Tristram only got in because said parents came to the admissions appeal armed with a top barrister…
Yes that is probably true. And, without making any assumptions, perhaps those heads might be concerned at the standards those parents had previously expected and might expect at their new school.
I really don’t think the expensive barrister argument works - any school that is over subscribed fully understands how to handle admission appeals - an expensive barrister isn’t going to help them, the staff member quietly telling you the key phrases to write in the appeal document is
What we need to talk about is s4 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (S) Act 2021 which is due to come into force on 1st April 2024. This is apparently too long for a single post.
4 Offences of stirring up hatred (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b) either— (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— ... (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The characteristics are— (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.
You will still be allowed to hate women, though.
Seriously though, it would be an excellent topic for a thread header, especially if written by a Scots lawyer. Are you available?
Surely both women and men have "variations in sex characteristics"?
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Isle of Wight - 2019 saw the Tories get 56%, Labour get 24% and Greens get 15%; voters on the island are weird and Greens on the island are a mixture of lefties and conservationists. Bristol Central - beat Thangham due to Labour people voting Green, which we can also see from local elections favouring greens Brighton - hold the seat Caroline is vacating. Norwich - Greens currently second largest party at local level, with 4 Labour cllrs crossing over to Greens. Adrian Ramsey is currently leader of Greens at the local council and it's a new Waveney Valley constituency that incorporates some of the strong Green areas.
These would all need to go towards Greens to get to that 4 figure. I also think that due to weird polling and FPTP that Greens could capitalise on Labour being seen as obviously winning at a national level, a Tory extinction and Labour moving so far to the centre / right that some people will vote Green anyway and that could lead to a weird win somewhere. Again, optimistic.
On the Isle of Wight, the Green vote was down in 2019 despite the Lib Dems standing aside for them, and they got two out of 39 councillors in 2021 on a reduced vote.
In Bristol, we've been here before - they went in all guns blazing in 2019 and were on the wrong end of a 28k majority. The MP is strong, Labour are on the up - it just isn't happening. Extrapolating a win from a low stakes, low turnout local election is a bit naive.
Norwich - Greens lost their deposit in both Norwich constituencies in 2019, and their local government presence there is nothing new.
Waveney - we will, of course see if a very blue area does more than pat the Greens on the head and give them a few district council seats in a low turnout election. Maybe if Consevratives do badly enough, but it's a stretch.
Brighton - they may, of course, hold a seat they won comfortably last time. Their activists would be wise to focus on that seat, though, as they fouled up running the Council and need all the help they can get with a change of candidate.
Is the Green candidate there a carpet bagger, like the one replacing Caroline Lucas, or is she a local as well as a national figure >
Ignoring tidal and getting the taxpayer to stump up for more offshore wind (when companies won't even invest unless the Government raises the price per kh to stupid levels) is cretinous. £8.3bn to erect floating windmills in case it's blowy, meanwhile the tides come in and go out every day like clockwork and we fail to harness them.
It doesn't have to be either or.
Given that this announcement would have been an opportunity to revive the prospect of tidal going ahead, I think this windmill announcement shows it's absolutely an either or. *This* is what they've been percolating away in all those years of having zero policies?
If the next government did nothing else other than speed up planning for major projects, it would be a vast improvement on what we have.
I really think that the failure of tidal to take off thus far is because there's no grifting money in things that actually work, and produce power for sensible money and in a timely fashion. Contrast with the truly eye watering sums involved in nuclear investment, or the subsidy jungle of wind.
Tidal is big bang expensive construction projects; lots of concrete. It’s a lot like nuclear in that respect. Not as big as nuclear, but still.
Wind is incremental - you can build it out one turbine at a time if you want to.
Why not do both if feasible. We all know problem with the wind is you cannot depend on it.
The tides we know are a given. Can it be made to work though ?
One problem with tidal is that it’s predictable but annoyingly periodic in a way that doesn’t line up with the 24 hour day over time. So you still have the problem that to actually use this power you really need to be able to store it somewhere, which drives up costs. Otherwise you’re going to spend half the year selling it into the market at off-peak times when you have power, so your return on capital is nowhere near what you’d expect from a naive calculation based on the mean electricity price.
Neither wind nor tidal can delivery power at short notice when you need it. You either need peak power plants (basically natgas at the moment) or batteries on a huge scale.
This isn’t actually too bad though - in the short term we already have the natgas plants & if we only use them for filling in the gaps then the CO2 impact is small & batteries are only getting cheaper over time. It’s already getting to the point that installing a battery in your house (+ ancillery gear) and paying spot for electricity is a net win for many people.
It is a very superficial analysis to conflate the periodical nature of tides with the totally unpredictable intermittency of wind. Along with the constraint payments to wind providers, use of wind has also driven up the price of gas, as gas providers are forced to switch their plants on and off at extremely short notice, which they charge for, and adds to the price of gas (something never mentioned by those who try to sell the idea that wind will become cheaper than gas). You don't get that with tidal - it is totally predictable, and you can line up your other power generators accordingly.
Besides which (@MarqueeMark can maybe remind us the answer here) do tidal barrages not generate power when the tide comes in, and then again when it goes out? Seems like it would be working for much of the time.
I'm a big fan of tidal, and I don't think we should have a big argument of tidal v wind. Just do both.
However, it's not true to say that wind power is totally unpredictable. Wind power forecasts for a few days in advance are reasonably accurate.
The things that really are unpredictable, and caused a challenge for the grid, are when a whole power plant falls off the grid instantly. This happened in the St Jude's Day storm when the cable connecting a nuclear power plant to the grid was knocked out, and more recently when the cable connecting a wind farm to the grid failed.
The predictable gradual increase/decrease of wind power as a cyclone moves across the country is much easier to deal with.
Michael Fish begs to differ.
If you're that ignorant about the subject matter then it's pointless discussing it.
You should try to differentiate between being flippant to make a serious point and being ignorant. Constraint payments to gas providers due to wind unreliability are a fact. The fact that wind can drop out completey during a cold snap is fact. The fact that it can get too windy and force wind farms to constrain is fact. I don't know why you're trying to sell the notion that because we have quite good ways of knowing if it's going to be windy the next day, this helps wind power be anything less than shit, but frankly, 'Michael Foot' is about the only answer it's worth.
Wind intermittency is a sizeable issue but it can be overstated. There is huge demand variation anyway. Adding unaligned supply variation in one energy source is just another variable. Wind's role in the mix comes down to cost of production and how easily it can be switched off. If production is cheap you can afford to build lots of farms that stay idle for significant periods. At a certain % of energy mix the cost of the alternative supply/storage gets to be too much. But we're still a long way from that point for onshore wind.
Nuclear suffers both from being highly inflexible (it can't easily be switched off) and having very high baseload costs. No-one has ever managed to make the business case stack up. But one station can generate huge amounts of electricity.
But each of those wind providers wants to make a profit, so no, their facilities cannot lie idle, or to be more accurate, they can lie idle, but the providers will charge for the privilege. That becomes more and more of a problem as wind farms become more numerous.
I am actually not for pulling down the windmills as @lostpassword has implied - we're balls deep in it and it's going to be with us for a while. But what I think we must do is reduce subsidies for everything, bar actual energy making it to the grid. I am comfortable with wind providers getting paid twice for the same power (once for storing it and not putting it on the grid, once for selling that stored power on to the grid during high demand), so they have a powerful commercial incentive to find storage solutions, which they don't have at the moment. This is why storage is nowhere - it doesn't pay to store.
Interconnectors to Europe as mentioned by @DavidL are not the answer for many reasons.
A cost benefit analysis commissioned by the National Grid found that plans as of 2016 showed a benefit to the UK, but interconnector capacity beyond that (which we have afaik now entered) did not. It benefitted the wider EU (where have we heard that before).
Future levels of interconnection Since interconnectors change prices, decreasing marginal returns from additional interconnection and stronger impacts on other existing interconnectors in the long-term are expected as price arbitrage opportunities and revenues may be cannibalised. There is strong evidence to suggest that additional capacity close to that currently agreed (NEMO, Eleclink, cap and floor window 1) will provide a net benefit to GB under many circumstances (this is disputed - my note) . However, it is less clear whether significant additional interconnection beyond that will produce benefits to GB. The value of this interconnection will very much be asset and market specific and require more detailed consideration. Analysis focusing on GB suggests falling marginal benefits of certain additional interconnector capacity in at least in some market scenarios but more analysis would be beneficial. The majority of EU-wide studies would support much higher levels of interconnection, as these assess benefits over a wider geographical area. Where interconnectors offer benefit to the wider European system rather than specifically to GB, this benefit could be shared appropriately so that GB can be a net beneficiary. Mechanisms for such transfers are considered further in ACER’s proposed CBCA
So it benefits the EU, not the UK Hardly surprising that our civil servants have pursued it with uncustomary zeal.
Further issues in the article below, summarised by me here:
*Interconnectors with the continent don't help an awful lot given that we share night times, and often wind conditions. *Interconnector electricity imported into the UK is considered 'low carbon' but can be and often is generated by gas or even coal in its country of origin. *Interconnectors have proven unreliable and prone to accidental damage in the past, and that's before you even get to someone deciding to chop the line as an act of terrorism or war.
Comments
Seriously though, it would be an excellent topic for a thread header, especially if written by a Scots lawyer. Are you available?
NEW THREAD
I believe the Humber Princess still makes the odd journey up river - I have seen it go past occasionally.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:193706/mmsi:235065014/imo:7902386/vessel:HUMBER_PRINCESS
Talking of industry and alternative transport, this was announced today:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-68639876
Quite excited by it, to be honest. Big sheds!
The problem is that it’s a popular policy where the counter attack is nuanced and doesn’t actually apply to that many people. And as shown above some people may like the idea their house is worth more
Reform's probelm in a nutshell. They hurt the Conservative vote everywhere but probably can't win anywhere. Their core vote- grumpy old men who don't like the way the world is going and especially don't like their own decrepitude- is too dispersed.
I am actually not for pulling down the windmills as @lostpassword has implied - we're balls deep in it and it's going to be with us for a while. But what I think we must do is reduce subsidies for everything, bar actual energy making it to the grid. I am comfortable with wind providers getting paid twice for the same power (once for storing it and not putting it on the grid, once for selling that stored power on to the grid during high demand), so they have a powerful commercial incentive to find storage solutions, which they don't have at the moment. This is why storage is nowhere - it doesn't pay to store.
Interconnectors to Europe as mentioned by @DavidL are not the answer for many reasons.
A cost benefit analysis commissioned by the National Grid found that plans as of 2016 showed a benefit to the UK, but interconnector capacity beyond that (which we have afaik now entered) did not. It benefitted the wider EU (where have we heard that before).
Since interconnectors change prices, decreasing marginal returns from additional
interconnection and stronger impacts on other existing interconnectors in the long-term
are expected as price arbitrage opportunities and revenues may be cannibalised.
There is strong evidence to suggest that additional capacity close to that currently agreed
(NEMO, Eleclink, cap and floor window 1) will provide a net benefit to GB under many
circumstances (this is disputed - my note) . However, it is less clear whether significant additional interconnection
beyond that will produce benefits to GB. The value of this interconnection will very much
be asset and market specific and require more detailed consideration. Analysis focusing
on GB suggests falling marginal benefits of certain additional interconnector capacity in at
least in some market scenarios but more analysis would be beneficial. The majority of
EU-wide studies would support much higher levels of interconnection, as these assess
benefits over a wider geographical area.
Where interconnectors offer benefit to the wider European system rather than specifically
to GB, this benefit could be shared appropriately so that GB can be a net beneficiary.
Mechanisms for such transfers are considered further in ACER’s proposed CBCA
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8006a3e5274a2e87db767f/080_Poyry_CostsAndBenefitsOfGBInterconnection_v500.pdf
So it benefits the EU, not the UK
Hardly surprising that our civil servants have pursued it with uncustomary zeal.
Further issues in the article below, summarised by me here:
*Interconnectors with the continent don't help an awful lot given that we share night times, and often wind conditions.
*Interconnector electricity imported into the UK is considered 'low carbon' but can be and often is generated by gas or even coal in its country of origin.
*Interconnectors have proven unreliable and prone to accidental damage in the past, and that's before you even get to someone deciding to chop the line as an act of terrorism or war.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/31/green-energy-solar-wind-renewable-energy-interconnector/