Badenoch responds robustly to what she says are smears. The Tories need to plump for her if they want to get back in next time I think.
Another blue Lib Dem isn’t going to cut it after the next 5 years. The votes market is going to be for a radically smaller state both economically and socially. And if it comes with a hard edge it will be all the more popular.
Funny you should mention the Lib Dems.
There are currently 72 Lib Dem seats, pretty much all in traditionally Conservative areas. And Lib Dems are notoriously hard to shift, especially while they're in opposition.
But without those seats, how the flip do the Conservatives get a majority? Isn't it the equivalent of the blockage that the SNP placed on Labour during the 2010s?
The current Tory focus on getting Reform voters to return to the Tory party (when they weren’t natural Tory voters in the first place) shows how deluded the current candidates are..
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
To be absolutely clear, you don't just want to abolish planning permission but also building regulations approval. Nobody should have any right to look at the plans before your start work, or even during the work, to confirm that it all meets regulations?
Badenoch responds robustly to what she says are smears. The Tories need to plump for her if they want to get back in next time I think.
Another blue Lib Dem isn’t going to cut it after the next 5 years. The votes market is going to be for a radically smaller state both economically and socially. And if it comes with a hard edge it will be all the more popular.
Let’s be clear: these allegations are smears from former staff who I sacked after they were accused of bullying behaviour, lying about other colleagues to cover up their own failures and general gross incompetence. Intolerable behaviour I would not stand for (2/3)
Would definitely be a red flag in any normal organisation
This reported account of her spokesperson in the Guardian is a little different from “I sacked..”:
.. A spokesperson for Badenoch said the allegations were “completely false and a flagrant smear”. They confirmed that the business secretary “had to let go of” some senior officials and suggested she had found examples of “underperformance, complaints and bad behaviour” within her department. They added that she has “high standards and expectations….
Black women, especially black women of recent African heritage, get an awful lot of stick for being direct and not taking shit. Largely because they are direct and don't take any shit. I should know, I'm married to one.
Almost certainly these were pathetic civil servants who couldn't stand the heat and have therefore been rightly removed from the kitchen. If they hadn't done anything wrong, then the key is to give as good as you get. You'll be respected for that. But I bet they had cause civil servants.
Among other things, it reveals that she was late to the count in Kings Lynn because she'd taken her daughter to McDonalds having been told there was half an hour before announcement was due, and that despite the McDonalds being 7 minutes from the leisure centre, they were delayed when a level crossing came down!
Perhaps even more tragi-comically, she was asked why she didn't give a loser's speech, and responded that the losers don't get speeches in Kings Lynn. In fact she glanced at the returning officer to see if she'd be asked, but they were just ushered off the stage. I could be wrong but I seem to remember her being widely abused for that here.
Anyway, watch the interview - it's Liz at her most punchy and she's very good.
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not?
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
Bart, you need to realise that your favoured solution isn’t even in the realms of maybe, for any UK party.
We know what you’d like, but it simply isn’t part of the political debate, and won’t be in this parliament, or the next.
So?
In order for anything to change for the better requires people to make arguments for it, eventually if enough people do the Overton Window can move and what was once absurd eventually becomes policy.
When I was young I argued for equal marriage for homosexuals, that was considered absurd at the time and would never be adopted by any party. Eventually it was. Now anyone who rejects it is considered extreme, not those of us who advocated it.
What I advocate is not absurd, even if its not currently popular, and is needed to fix our problems. Not only that, it has been implemented in other countries and when it has been done, it works.
Badenoch responds robustly to what she says are smears. The Tories need to plump for her if they want to get back in next time I think.
Another blue Lib Dem isn’t going to cut it after the next 5 years. The votes market is going to be for a radically smaller state both economically and socially. And if it comes with a hard edge it will be all the more popular.
Let’s be clear: these allegations are smears from former staff who I sacked after they were accused of bullying behaviour, lying about other colleagues to cover up their own failures and general gross incompetence. Intolerable behaviour I would not stand for (2/3)
Would definitely be a red flag in any normal organisation
This reported account of her spokesperson in the Guardian is a little different from “I sacked..”:
.. A spokesperson for Badenoch said the allegations were “completely false and a flagrant smear”. They confirmed that the business secretary “had to let go of” some senior officials and suggested she had found examples of “underperformance, complaints and bad behaviour” within her department. They added that she has “high standards and expectations….
Black women, especially black women of recent African heritage, get an awful lot of stick for being direct and not taking shit. Largely because they are direct and don't take any shit. I should know, I'm married to one.
Almost certainly these were pathetic civil servants who couldn't stand the heat and have therefore been rightly removed from the kitchen. If they hadn't done anything wrong, then the key is to give as good as you get. You'll be respected for that. But I bet they had cause civil servants.
Sorry but the usual response from doing what you are suggesting is a visit to HR followed by the job centre
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
Good point, frightened people in a community that has lost three children who never reached double figures booing a politician there for a possible photo op are indeed twats. How dare they. I’m sure they value your opinion as much as everyone here does 👍
They should tug their forelocks instead and bask in his radiated magnificence.
Oh do us a favour and piss off.
It doesn't matter who the PM is, whether it be Starmer, or Sunak, or Cameron (who had almost the exact same thing happen, in almost the exact same circumstances).
Some people are twats either way and they're not "frightened", they're attention-seeking twats who are exploiting a tragedy to be twats.
Which they're doing, because they are twats.
Nah, I’ll hang around unless TSE decides it’s time for me to get the picture of a Spitfire and a carriage clock, if it’s all the same. Please feel free to ignore my posts.
What sort of knob abuses frightened members for a community that have lost three young girls. Obviously they’re twats and in the wrong for daring not to kiss SKS’s feet for and I’m sure they will take on board your savage condemnation and reflect on it and become the people you demand they become.
I have nothing against members of a community.
I have a problem with trouble-makers making their way to a community that's suffered a tragedy in order to cause a scene.
Does this mean I’m allowed to say. Phew, what a relief.
Apologies. I didn’t realise you were actually there today as an eye witness to verify this.
All is well. Our man on the spot. Aided and abetted by Ben from Dorset.
Now back to posting about Gaza, the state pension, and planning laws 👍
Don't need to be on the spot, its standard operating procedure for dickheads to travel to scenes of tragedies to pile on for their vile hate.
Impressive. Don’t have to be there but you know anyway. That’s smart.
Thanks for allowing me to stay. Appreciated. Look forward to your reports from the front line in Lebanon from the comfort of your armchair in North West England.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
To be absolutely clear, you don't just want to abolish planning permission but also building regulations approval. Nobody should have any right to look at the plans before your start work, or even during the work, to confirm that it all meets regulations?
Correct.
If you're a qualified professional you should be able to get on with your job doing what you know how to do, without someone else looking at it first.
If the regulations are broken it should be dealt with retrospectively, same as anyone else who breaks the law.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
To be absolutely clear, you don't just want to abolish planning permission but also building regulations approval. Nobody should have any right to look at the plans before your start work, or even during the work, to confirm that it all meets regulations?
Correct.
If you're a qualified professional you should be able to get on with your job doing what you know how to do, without someone else looking at it first.
That's way more extreme than just abolishing planning permission.
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
No it won't.
A few racist bigots like yourself want to make every little thing into race, but the rest of the country does not and moves on.
Among other things, it reveals that she was late to the count in Kings Lynn because she'd taken her daughter to McDonalds having been told there was half an hour before announcement was due, and that despite the McDonalds being 7 minutes from the leisure centre, they were delayed when a level crossing came down!
Perhaps even more tragi-comically, she was asked why she didn't give a loser's speech, and responded that the losers don't get speeches in Kings Lynn. In fact she glanced at the returning officer to see if she'd be asked, but they were just ushered off the stage. I could be wrong but I seem to remember her being widely abused for that here.
Anyway, watch the interview - it's Liz at her most punchy and she's very good.
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not?
Ok, I'm not.
I don't deploy sarcasm very often - it's the lowest form of wit.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
To be absolutely clear, you don't just want to abolish planning permission but also building regulations approval. Nobody should have any right to look at the plans before your start work, or even during the work, to confirm that it all meets regulations?
Correct.
If you're a qualified professional you should be able to get on with your job doing what you know how to do, without someone else looking at it first.
That's way more extreme than just abolishing planning permission.
Why?
In Japan, if someone wants to start building something that's exactly what they do.
They have to conform to regulations, but they don't need to ask permission of anyone first in order to do so.
The first a neighbour knows that next door is building a home on their land, is when the builders go in to start working.
This is worrying. The far right gathering outside a mosque in Southport.
And yet the person responsible doesn’t seem to have been a Muslim and didn’t live in Southport…
I’m not sure that matters to the Tommy Robinson rentamob, any more than the precise sustainability policies of corporations matter to just stop oil types. Rentamobs gonna rentamob.
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
No it won't.
A few racist bigots like yourself want to make every little thing into race, but the rest of the country does not and moves on.
You do realise that after the seventieth billionth time calling me a "fucking racist" or a "racist bigot", or indeed "fucking appeaser" or a "putinite shill"- nearly always for the sin of being entirely correct - it has no effect whatsoever?
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
To be absolutely clear, you don't just want to abolish planning permission but also building regulations approval. Nobody should have any right to look at the plans before your start work, or even during the work, to confirm that it all meets regulations?
Correct.
If you're a qualified professional you should be able to get on with your job doing what you know how to do, without someone else looking at it first.
That's way more extreme than just abolishing planning permission.
Why?
In Japan, if someone wants to start building something that's exactly what they do.
They have to conform to regulations, but they don't need to ask permission of anyone first in order to do so.
The first a neighbour knows that next door is building a home on their land, is when the builders go in to start working.
Would you have no threshold in terms of the size of building that can be constructed without prior permission?
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
No it won't.
A few racist bigots like yourself want to make every little thing into race, but the rest of the country does not and moves on.
You do realise that after the seventieth billionth time calling me a "fucking racist" or a "racist bigot", or indeed "fucking appeaser" or a "putinite shill"- nearly always for the sin of being entirely correct - it has no effect whatsoever?
Just trying to help you save on the typing!
You're correct less often than a Magic 8 Ball.
Shotgun every situation with manic predictions of every kind and yes some of them will by coincidence happen to be right - yet if the polar opposite had happened then other ones would have been correct instead. That's what happens when you cover all bases manically.
Badenoch responds robustly to what she says are smears. The Tories need to plump for her if they want to get back in next time I think.
Another blue Lib Dem isn’t going to cut it after the next 5 years. The votes market is going to be for a radically smaller state both economically and socially. And if it comes with a hard edge it will be all the more popular.
Let’s be clear: these allegations are smears from former staff who I sacked after they were accused of bullying behaviour, lying about other colleagues to cover up their own failures and general gross incompetence. Intolerable behaviour I would not stand for (2/3)
Would definitely be a red flag in any normal organisation
This reported account of her spokesperson in the Guardian is a little different from “I sacked..”:
.. A spokesperson for Badenoch said the allegations were “completely false and a flagrant smear”. They confirmed that the business secretary “had to let go of” some senior officials and suggested she had found examples of “underperformance, complaints and bad behaviour” within her department. They added that she has “high standards and expectations….
Black women, especially black women of recent African heritage, get an awful lot of stick for being direct and not taking shit. Largely because they are direct and don't take any shit. I should know, I'm married to one.
Almost certainly these were pathetic civil servants who couldn't stand the heat and have therefore been rightly removed from the kitchen. If they hadn't done anything wrong, then the key is to give as good as you get. You'll be respected for that. But I bet they had cause civil servants.
Being a black woman of African heritage doesn't remove the requirement to treat staff with due process and according to the law.
Not wishing to stereotype, I can only think of one such woman out of many I have worked with professionally who would dream of doing something like this.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incels seem to perfer to murder family members + peers (esp. female peers) of approx. the same age.
According to The Telegraph on the spot in Southport:
Police riot vans and officers are standing guard outside the mosque, amid chants of “No surrender!” and “English till I die!” from sections of the crowd.
I don't reckon those EDL favourite songs would be chosen by many locals. If I was a parent of one of the murdered girls, I'd be bloody furious at this appropriation of my grief by the far right.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
To be absolutely clear, you don't just want to abolish planning permission but also building regulations approval. Nobody should have any right to look at the plans before your start work, or even during the work, to confirm that it all meets regulations?
Correct.
If you're a qualified professional you should be able to get on with your job doing what you know how to do, without someone else looking at it first.
That's way more extreme than just abolishing planning permission.
Why?
In Japan, if someone wants to start building something that's exactly what they do.
They have to conform to regulations, but they don't need to ask permission of anyone first in order to do so.
The first a neighbour knows that next door is building a home on their land, is when the builders go in to start working.
If we are to shift the Overton window on planning then we need people at the “extreme” end of the spectrum like you.
I would be much much more wary on building regs than planning, but it’s fair to say most building failures - Grenfell, asbestos, RAAC, fungal deaths etc - are due to the building regs themselves being poorly designed rather than non compliance.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
Among other things, it reveals that she was late to the count in Kings Lynn because she'd taken her daughter to McDonalds having been told there was half an hour before announcement was due, and that despite the McDonalds being 7 minutes from the leisure centre, they were delayed when a level crossing came down!
Perhaps even more tragi-comically, she was asked why she didn't give a loser's speech, and responded that the losers don't get speeches in Kings Lynn. In fact she glanced at the returning officer to see if she'd be asked, but they were just ushered off the stage. I could be wrong but I seem to remember her being widely abused for that here.
Anyway, watch the interview - it's Liz at her most punchy and she's very good.
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not?
Ok, I'm not.
I don't deploy sarcasm very often - it's the lowest form of wit.
Liz Truss' excuses have a dog ate my homework vibe. Who knows? Maybe the dog did eat her homework ....
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incels seem to perfer to murder family members + peers (esp. female peers) of approx. the same age.
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
No it won't.
A few racist bigots like yourself want to make every little thing into race, but the rest of the country does not and moves on.
You do realise that after the seventieth billionth time calling me a "fucking racist" or a "racist bigot", or indeed "fucking appeaser" or a "putinite shill"- nearly always for the sin of being entirely correct - it has no effect whatsoever?
Just trying to help you save on the typing!
You're correct less often than a Magic 8 Ball.
Shotgun every situation with manic predictions of every kind and yes some of them will by coincidence happen to be right - yet if the polar opposite had happened then other ones would have been correct instead. That's what happens when you cover all bases manically.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
To be absolutely clear, you don't just want to abolish planning permission but also building regulations approval. Nobody should have any right to look at the plans before your start work, or even during the work, to confirm that it all meets regulations?
Correct.
If you're a qualified professional you should be able to get on with your job doing what you know how to do, without someone else looking at it first.
That's way more extreme than just abolishing planning permission.
Why?
In Japan, if someone wants to start building something that's exactly what they do.
They have to conform to regulations, but they don't need to ask permission of anyone first in order to do so.
The first a neighbour knows that next door is building a home on their land, is when the builders go in to start working.
Would you have no threshold in terms of the size of building that can be constructed without prior permission?
Personally, I'd say anything up to four stories I think is reasonable no questions asked, no permission needed, absolutely anywhere outside of AONBs.
Once you get into sky scrapers or tower blocks, I think its reasonable to set regulations but land in town/city centres should be zoned as acceptable for tower blocks etc.
Badenoch responds robustly to what she says are smears. The Tories need to plump for her if they want to get back in next time I think.
Another blue Lib Dem isn’t going to cut it after the next 5 years. The votes market is going to be for a radically smaller state both economically and socially. And if it comes with a hard edge it will be all the more popular.
#TeamKemi #LetsDoThis
Let's do this. Let's finish the Tory Party off altogether.
Au contraire. She'll make mincemeat and pale, make and stale Knights Of The Realm "Sir's Keir and Ed" - And take the Tories back to government in 2029.
Whatever.
Remember you Lib-Dems have pretty much thrown your entire lot in with Labour so you better hope Sir Kier and Rachel aren't as useless as it appears they probably are or you'll be done for along with them in 2029.
It's going to be an interesting five years ahead methinks...
This is the Lib Dem party that voted overwhelmingly to lift the 2-child benefit cap, which Labour kept?
Badenoch responds robustly to what she says are smears. The Tories need to plump for her if they want to get back in next time I think.
Another blue Lib Dem isn’t going to cut it after the next 5 years. The votes market is going to be for a radically smaller state both economically and socially. And if it comes with a hard edge it will be all the more popular.
Let’s be clear: these allegations are smears from former staff who I sacked after they were accused of bullying behaviour, lying about other colleagues to cover up their own failures and general gross incompetence. Intolerable behaviour I would not stand for (2/3)
Would definitely be a red flag in any normal organisation
This reported account of her spokesperson in the Guardian is a little different from “I sacked..”:
.. A spokesperson for Badenoch said the allegations were “completely false and a flagrant smear”. They confirmed that the business secretary “had to let go of” some senior officials and suggested she had found examples of “underperformance, complaints and bad behaviour” within her department. They added that she has “high standards and expectations….
Black women, especially black women of recent African heritage, get an awful lot of stick for being direct and not taking shit. Largely because they are direct and don't take any shit. I should know, I'm married to one.
Almost certainly these were pathetic civil servants who couldn't stand the heat and have therefore been rightly removed from the kitchen. If they hadn't done anything wrong, then the key is to give as good as you get. You'll be respected for that. But I bet they had cause civil servants.
Being a black woman of African heritage doesn't remove the requirement to treat staff with due process and according to the law.
Not wishing to stereotype, I can only think of one such woman out of many I have worked with professionally who would dream of doing something like this.
Such due process is a key reason that public sector productivity is so piss poor.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
There is a world of difference between booing someone and violent disorder.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
Incel makes no less sense than anything else. But nothing really makes sense. The whole thing seems to have had too much planning and specificity for something so insane. Random nutters are normally less good at planning.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
To be absolutely clear, you don't just want to abolish planning permission but also building regulations approval. Nobody should have any right to look at the plans before your start work, or even during the work, to confirm that it all meets regulations?
Correct.
If you're a qualified professional you should be able to get on with your job doing what you know how to do, without someone else looking at it first.
That's way more extreme than just abolishing planning permission.
Why?
In Japan, if someone wants to start building something that's exactly what they do.
They have to conform to regulations, but they don't need to ask permission of anyone first in order to do so.
The first a neighbour knows that next door is building a home on their land, is when the builders go in to start working.
Would you have no threshold in terms of the size of building that can be constructed without prior permission?
Personally, I'd say anything up to four stories I think is reasonable no questions asked, no permission needed, absolutely anywhere outside of AONBs.
Once you get into sky scrapers or tower blocks, I think its reasonable to set regulations but land in town/city centres should be zoned as acceptable for tower blocks etc.
Damn, so even PB’s just-stop-planning fundamentalist doesn’t support my right to build a tasting room and cabin at my AONB-based vineyard!
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
I can see your point, but that's always been the case. See black people being blamed for crimes - or the fear of crimes - back as far as the 1960s, well before 'unchecked mass immigration'.
In the minds of the brainless, it's always the fault of 'others'; and that's nearly always minorities.
But what if, occasionally, the “bigoted viewpoint” is true?
(snip)
Going around shooting 500 men because they might be paedophiles is not excused if one of them turns out to have been a paedophile, and the other 499 were not.
For all your pathetic screeching about being 'right', your track record of hot takes on incidents is very, very poor.
"Going around shooting 500 men because they might be wrong uns is not excused if one of them turns out to have been a wrong uns, and the other 499 were not."
The Black and Tans have entered the chat, along with General Dwyer.
Among other things, it reveals that she was late to the count in Kings Lynn because she'd taken her daughter to McDonalds having been told there was half an hour before announcement was due, and that despite the McDonalds being 7 minutes from the leisure centre, they were delayed when a level crossing came down!
Perhaps even more tragi-comically, she was asked why she didn't give a loser's speech, and responded that the losers don't get speeches in Kings Lynn. In fact she glanced at the returning officer to see if she'd be asked, but they were just ushered off the stage. I could be wrong but I seem to remember her being widely abused for that here.
Anyway, watch the interview - it's Liz at her most punchy and she's very good.
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not?
Ok, I'm not.
I don't deploy sarcasm very often - it's the lowest form of wit.
Liz Truss' excuses have a dog ate my homework vibe. Who knows? Maybe the dog did eat her homework ....
Do they? Is there a 'dog ate my homework' vibe about claiming the Bank of England is responsible for setting interest rates, which they are? Seems like a fairly prosaic statement of fact to me.
Lozza Fox is getting involved, talking about the need 'to permanently remove Islam from Great Britain. Completely and entirely'.
The rest of us are just thinking of how beneficial it would be for him to be completely permanently removed from public discourse.
He clearly needs to raise some money given that Lozza managed to open up a whole new set of libel claims last Friday. Won’t go into the details for obvious reasons
Did he ?
Oops !!
Another lot? Needs to ask the Leeanderthal Man how he handled it from the other side. Learn the lesson of the first pratfall, and read the First Law of Holes.
Oh hang on, I was thinking of Joey vs JV, not Lozza the Kneejerk.
But depending on who Lozza has gone for, it may be good for some charities in due course.
Joey has more trouble ahead for posts about Eni Aluko. You don’t have to be a fan of Vine to think the posts making those foul claims about him which I won’t repeat were disgusting.
Lee Anderson was never sued by Jack Monroe and the 12 month window expired.
I am no lawyer, but the Eni Aluko ones seemed mean but obviously a joke. If Jimmy Carr said it you wouldn't think anymore about it. The Vine ones you can see why and he was stupid not to just apologize from the start.
He's in trouble for direct messages to Aluko, not the public tweets.
Can you libel someone in a dress text message? How do you prove reputational damage?
Dunno, but he isn't fighting a libel charge he is fighting a malicious communications charge.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
People who obsessed with not "being overlooked" have always given me the creeps. Can't explain why.
Some of us like to assemble our WMDs in privacy. My Violet Club replica is very sensitive and it's feelings are easily hurt.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
Any Islam link is very speculative, Rwanda is a more Christian country than the UK. Of course it can't be ruled out but you'd need more detailed information before going down that route
According to The Telegraph on the spot in Southport:
Police riot vans and officers are standing guard outside the mosque, amid chants of “No surrender!” and “English till I die!” from sections of the crowd.
I don't reckon those EDL favourite songs would be chosen by many locals. If I was a parent of one of the murdered girls, I'd be bloody furious at this appropriation of my grief by the far right.
I'm all adrift with the hysteria, are the racists saying that the lad who murdered these kids was a Muslim? Wasn't aware Islam was a thing in Rwanda.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
Perhaps even at this eleventh hour the Race War can be averted if we start deporting foreigners instead of putting out the welcome mat.
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
Perhaps even at this eleventh hour the Race War can be averted if we start deporting foreigners instead of putting out the welcome mat.
One great thing about nights like tonight is that the racists come out and show their true colours.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
From your man on the scene.
Never claimed to be on the scene.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
Bart, you need to realise that your favoured solution isn’t even in the realms of maybe, for any UK party.
We know what you’d like, but it simply isn’t part of the political debate, and won’t be in this parliament, or the next.
So?
In order for anything to change for the better requires people to make arguments for it, eventually if enough people do the Overton Window can move and what was once absurd eventually becomes policy.
When I was young I argued for equal marriage for homosexuals, that was considered absurd at the time and would never be adopted by any party. Eventually it was. Now anyone who rejects it is considered extreme, not those of us who advocated it.
What I advocate is not absurd, even if its not currently popular, and is needed to fix our problems. Not only that, it has been implemented in other countries and when it has been done, it works.
You'll need council permission to move that window, I'm afraid.
Are Labour really going to bring in the school fees VAT in January mid way through a school year?
That feels bizarre to me.
They’re attempting to make it retrospective to this September, but can’t get the legislation through in time.
Which I suspect will lead to a well-funded legal challenge.
Any evidence to back the September claim up?
Because if they were doing that they would have had to do it yesterday and instead all they said January.. (Remember this sort of trick is something I'm very aware of - so the wording yesterday was interesting and carefully created a distinct line)...
Reality is that by implementing it in January and announcing yesterday after the school year and finished it's designed to minimise the number of people able to move schools before September which is probably a relief to both State and Private schools...
Although it does rather mess up people who are already struggling to pay school fees...
So we’ll get a winter of freezing pensioner headlines followed by a January of taking the little darlings out of school/could state schools be overwhelmed headlines. Plus whatever comes down the line in the budget in October.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing much by way of a Labour honeymoon. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are going to suddenly look amazing (they’re not). But it will be interesting to see what the polls are coming out with early next year.
Not optimal… but then I guess they’re getting these hits out of the way early.
I LOL at Labour for the private school fees move.
I think Starmer reckons it'll be another foxhunting ban moment. But foxhunting was directly supported by very few people, and this move will affect many, many more people directly. It'll cheer those who hate people who are richer than them; but dismay many more.
Personally I’m a VAT supremacist, so this is grist to the mill. VAT on everything!
VAT on everything is a fair argument. But this is VAT on something very specific and targeted, mostly for ideological reasons rather than attempting to raise revenue.
It’s red meat to an activist base who think every private school is just like “Boris Johnson’s Eton”.
And it may well work out that Boris Johnson Eton comes out ahead on the changes, and it small / special needs schools that are the ones most effected.
If you want an extra £1bn from rich people there are much easier ways to get it.
Starmer doesn’t give a fuck how much money it raises. It was a high protein plant based meat substitute policy for his base that doesn’t repel centrist dickheads and can't be proved to cost a shitload of cash. He needed his base as hard as a fucking brick to work the GE for him.
It was and is smart politics. All of this wanking off about how much it will raise or cost totally misses the point of it. The lachrymose grief of the bottom half of the bourgeoisie is a splendid by-product, not the prime intent.
And the children with disrupted education, the good teachers now unemployed and the closed businesses?
All for a spiteful and envious policy that will damage the country overall.
And we've got five years of the crap that 20% of the electorate foisted on us.
This could be a re-run of the Wilson administration 1974-1979, just with a bigger majority.
Not really, to have a re-run like that you need a slender majority forcing decisions in a particular direction...
Well with talk like this, they had better deliver. If they don't, it's not entirely impossible to see them losing their majority in five years.
Rayner accuses Badenoch of not understanding why Tories lost election, with housing key factor Rayner starts by wishing Badenoch luck with her leadership bid. She says it was Badenoch’s ambition to be leader of the opposition, not hers.
She says she thinks there are a few things Badenoch “has not understood”.
One is that the Tories lost the election. Another is that they left services in a mess, including failing to meet their housing targets.
She says the Conservatives '“are talking to themselves, not the country”...
OTOH, if they do, then it's going to be a very long stint in opposition for Kemi.
If Labour manage to deliver a Britain in which housing is as affordable as it was for our parents' generation they will deserve a long spell in power. Can't disagree - housing is possibly the biggest issue there is right now.
They won't.
They could of course but the only way to do that is to effectvely nationalise housebuilding and have local councils or Central Government build hundreds of thousands of houses themselves. It won't happen - even though actually it would be a good idea if it did. People continue to refuse tounderstand that the problem with housebuilding is the housebuilders. When prices stagnate they stop building to ensure the prices start rising again.
You're almost there Richard at recognising the problem. So close and yet so far away.
We need to break the oligopoly of the housing developers. Which means planning reform.
It doesn't matter how much planning permission is given out, if its given out to an oligopoly who can constrain supply and competitors can't get involved as getting permission for a tiny number of homes is so difficult.
Getting permission is expensive and laborious which only makes sense if you can divide that cost between a large number of homes, so it doesn't cost as much per home, which only the oligopoly of large developers with expertise at playing the planning game can do.
Get rid of planning permission, let anyone build, and the developers would face competition. If they refuse to build, then anyone else can do so instead. One house at a time, without waiting for permission first.
That's really not true. Getting planning permission for the kind of individual development you're talking about is not particularly expensive, and requires less work than building control approval which you're not proposing to do away with.
Getting planning permission for small developments is expensive, and time consuming, and uncertain. Which is problematic for anyone who needs to be able to plan out a series of work to do.
That's why small developments are a minute fraction of all houses that get permission.
Abolish the requirement for permission, that will cease to be a factor.
I propose abolishing asking permission, while maintaining building regulations.
Anyone who wants to build, within legal regulations, should be able to do so, no questions asked, without asking permission first. Just hire some builders and start work without speaking to any neighbours or Council about it.
We should go by the typical English attitude elsewhere that anything that is not forbidden is permitted.
And back to our example of someone building a Juliet balcony directly facing your garden, you think the neighbour should have no right whatsover to intervene? Their only redress would be to build a wall in front of it?
Not sure how many times I have to say yes.
Whatever they want to build, within regulations, on their own land is up to them. So long as it sticks to their land.
Balconies have a tendency to look into other people's gardens. So do windows. I can look directly into both my neighbours gardens from my own window, that's how rows of houses work. They can look into mine too. No big deal. If you want privacy, buy a bigger plot of land.
People who obsessed with not "being overlooked" have always given me the creeps. Can't explain why.
Some of us like to assemble our WMDs in privacy. My Violet Club replica is very sensitive and it's feelings are easily hurt.
A bucketful of ball bearings sorts that. (Top tip: buy second grade, the rejects that go to paintballers, from a specialist dealer. Saves a lot of money.)
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
Perhaps even at this eleventh hour the Race War can be averted if we start deporting foreigners instead of putting out the welcome mat.
One great thing about nights like tonight is that the racists come out and show their true colours.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
From your man on the scene.
Never claimed to be on the scene.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
Such events do, indeed, draw the imitators and worshipers of Yaxley-Lennon.
For anyone with actual footage - how many drunk football hooligans types are present?
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
From your man on the scene.
Never claimed to be on the scene.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
From your man on the scene.
Never claimed to be on the scene.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
Perhaps even at this eleventh hour the Race War can be averted if we start deporting foreigners instead of putting out the welcome mat.
“Data released by the German Interior Ministry on Tuesday showed that crimes in Europe's largest economy have reached their highest peak since 2016.
The data, which sparked widespread debate, shows that last year, 41 percent of all crime suspects were foreigners, or persons without German citizenship. Foreigners in German represent only 15 percent of the population.”
At some point, your feeble and effete bisexual social climbing “golf club member” Labour voting faux reality will yield to the cold hard thrust of red-blooded heterosexual facts
Reeves botches up her tax plan Miliband fks up energy policy Cooper has riots on the streets And Starmer gets booed for a 2 minute visit. ( why did he even bother ? )
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
Perhaps even at this eleventh hour the Race War can be averted if we start deporting foreigners instead of putting out the welcome mat.
Helter Skelter.
There’s not going to be a race war. Most people rub along just fine. There’s more that unites us than divides us. Perhaps some people need to stop stoking division and blaming communities. Inflaming tensions is not helpful.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
They are going the other way. Banning smoking, which will just mean more profits for drug dealers and dodgy unregulated tobacco.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
From your man on the scene.
Never claimed to be on the scene.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
Incel makes no less sense than anything else. But nothing really makes sense. The whole thing seems to have had too much planning and specificity for something so insane. Random nutters are normally less good at planning.
Yes, indeed
I don’t want to get banned but there are hints on t’net that this is more than what we are allowed to see
Nonetheless, it could really just be a rando 17 year old psycho with a grudge against pretty pale females. This is not unknown
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
From your man on the scene.
Never claimed to be on the scene.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
Such events do, indeed, draw the imitators and worshipers of Yaxley-Lennon.
For anyone with actual footage - how many drunk football hooligans types are present?
To be fair, drunk football hooligan types are not unknown in Southport. I havr vague memories of a Steven-Gerard-related incident there a few years ago.
Reeves botches up her tax plan Miliand fks up energy policy Cooper has riots on the streets And Starmer gets booed for a 2 minute visit. ( why did he even bother ? )
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
From your man on the scene.
Never claimed to be on the scene.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
You now ‘suspect’ rather than know. 👍
Yeah 'now'.
Glad you got there in the end. 👍
I started there.
That highlighted element was posted over an hour ago.
Meanwhile you were the one banging on about on the spot and being definitive, while I was not.
Badenoch responds robustly to what she says are smears. The Tories need to plump for her if they want to get back in next time I think.
Another blue Lib Dem isn’t going to cut it after the next 5 years. The votes market is going to be for a radically smaller state both economically and socially. And if it comes with a hard edge it will be all the more popular.
#TeamKemi #LetsDoThis
Let's do this. Let's finish the Tory Party off altogether.
Au contraire. She'll make mincemeat and pale, make and stale Knights Of The Realm "Sir's Keir and Ed" - And take the Tories back to government in 2029.
Whatever.
Remember you Lib-Dems have pretty much thrown your entire lot in with Labour so you better hope Sir Kier and Rachel aren't as useless as it appears they probably are or you'll be done for along with them in 2029.
It's going to be an interesting five years ahead methinks...
This is the Lib Dem party that voted overwhelmingly to lift the 2-child benefit cap, which Labour kept?
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
It won't. Also, policing would be impossible. Busting people on a weed yes/no basis is one thing, busting them on a weed ok but is it over the legal n ppm of THC is bullshit
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
Because that's how legalisation works.
How many people go out and buy illegal, stronger booze.
When its legal, most people just go to the shop and buy what they want.
Reeves botches up her tax plan Miliand fks up energy policy Cooper has riots on the streets And Starmer gets booed for a 2 minute visit. ( why did he even bother ? )
Photo op ??
Probably but it was pure cynicism . If he was sympathetic he's have made himself visible and for longer.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Again, not the main issue, but Southport (and Banks!) certainly not a deprived town!
Reeves botches up her tax plan Miliband fks up energy policy Cooper has riots on the streets And Starmer gets booed for a 2 minute visit. ( why did he even bother ? )
And they already have their paws all over the triumphalist shitcanning of Rwanda, the optics of which are horrid in this context.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
For starters, my own personal experience. I'd prefer a legal toot on something less strong that won't leave me drooling in a car park somewhere and waking up three days later with no trousers on (google some spice trip reports if you want to be sad and laugh at the same time.)
You can also look at alcohol prohibition in the US, people gravitated towards stronger drinks - pure spirits - during prohibition as they were easier to manufacture and transport and gave more of a kick. Most people, given the choice between having a couple of beers or a bottle of wine, vs necking a bottle of bathtub gin prefer the former. Alcohol consumption patterns in the US, while hard to track, suggest people don't always opt for the strongest choice when multiple choices are available.
Similarly decriminalisation in the US hasn't led to most people picking super strength knockout skunk by default. As I say, most people prefer to get a little buzzy and be sociable rather than pick the first knockout train to obiliteration-ville. The people who don't, will have less access to the stronger stuff, as there will be less demand - and therefore less extant supply - for it.
Is it me, or is it a touch bad-tempered today, whilst I've been away supervising gas engineers?
I feel a need for a pineapple-topped pizza.
My photo quota today is a new Olympic Sport - autobalance. It's a valid sport even though a judge is present. I'm not sure which country this is. I have lots of ideas for other events.
I was quite taken by a suggestion in a trying-hard-but-not-quite-getting-there suggestion from the CIHT that rising bollards should have a bleep-warning for VIPs (Visually Impaired People) before they rise. Not totally convinced that that is to the left on the pareto chart.
* Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation.
Yeah, it’s been right cranky the last couple of days.
Dead children are secondary to people either wanting to bash migration, or as has happened today, wanting to sneer at a frightened community who dared to boo Starmer.
On a plus note the cycle route I use to work has had in the last couple of weeks a lot of work to not only improve access to it but also to remove the nasty bits where roots prose through the pathway.
One of the two gas engineers who was fitting the new boiler this morning * was a lady who retired from the police several years ago in her 30s because she was divorced with 3 young kids and could not find childcare to handle the shift pattern.
Not sure just where prices are now except that British Gas BFONT their customers with an inverted porcupine, but I paid £2750 for a Baxi Platinum Compact with a 10 year guarantee (+£250 over 5 year guarantee), which included a Magnaclean (iron filing remover), Gas Safety Cert and a supplied shower replaced. Trader below VAT threshold. 2 people 5 hours. That is probably a price for likely repeat business, as she will get ~3 services/safety certs per annum from me, plus be a regular supplier.
I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I had a Baxi fitted a few years ago which included some new pipework and it was 1850 GBP and I got a discount on the boiler as I worked for them at the time.
Since then had to replace the expansion vessel and plate to plate.
Not a fan of Combi boilers as it’s a pressured system.
Yours is probably made at the Preston site which, when I worked there had a BNP councillor.
The engineer is keen on Baxi because of ease of maintenance (I'm normally a Bosch Greenstar or Ideal shop), aka "in Baxi the pieces that need replacing tend to be easier to get to" - which is fair enough.
Plus works closely with a colleague and says she can deliver a prompt response for me on things that go pop, which is very important for an LL. I had one boiler that died in December; a rapid response is very important then.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
Because that's how legalisation works.
How many people go out and buy illegal, stronger booze.
When its legal, most people just go to the shop and buy what they want.
But there's nothing stopping people buying really strong alcohol, is there?
This is going to end in race war, or a kind of hideous sectarian stand off, a la Northern Ireland, as others have wisely noted
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
Perhaps even at this eleventh hour the Race War can be averted if we start deporting foreigners instead of putting out the welcome mat.
Helter Skelter.
There’s not going to be a race war. Most people rub along just fine. There’s more that unites us than divides us. Perhaps some people need to stop stoking division and blaming communities. Inflaming tensions is not helpful.
Indeed. It tends to be racists who warn of race wars.
I see people are reading too much into why the PM was booed at Southport.
Some people are twats. That is all.
That's being a bit unfair. I was angry about it tis morning (see my post about the death sentence...), but it was an impotent anger. The story was devastating, but I was powerless. If it had happened in my town, I don't know if I'd go to the scene to pay respects. But if I did, and a figure of authority came by, might I boo them? Perhaps. Would I be able to articulate why I was booing them? Probably not.
People in that town will be feeling devastated and more than a little scared. Emotions are understandably high. Give them a break.
Would you boo someone who came to the scene to pay respects? No, I don't think you would.
Emotions are high I agree, and I don't think those who are seeking to exploit a tragedy are anything other than twats. Those who are sad and paying their respects are not.
Some people's first response to a tragedy is to be sad, have sympathy for the victims and want to find out what actually happened and try to prevent it happening again.
Some people's first response to any tragedy, is to grab it with both hands and try to force it into something its not in order to fit their agenda, ignoring any inconvenient truths that don't fit their agenda.
The latter are . . . twats.
If it's local people struggling to process something utterly horrible and horrifying, they deserve some slack. And part of being the adult, the one in charge, is standing there absorbing the incoherent rage that others are experiencing. And from what I've seen, Starmer did that fine. I'm sure that, in this situation, Sunak would have done as well, though he didn't always while PM.
What's not on is political opportunists coming in and saying "this proves what I've said all along", or "I'm not saying this myself, but makes you think , doesn't it?" And as for those extrapolating Starmer's inevitable political demise... pace yourself, darlings. The worse things go now, the more likely you are going to have five years to wait.
Yeah, I doubt that any booing happened by or was representative of locals, I suspect its the usual suspects of trouble-makers who find their way to getting attention wherever they can.
Far-right thugs are now using this tragedy as an excuse for a riot by the sounds of it. As if the town hasn't got enough to cope with already. Vile shitheads.
Another expert from the comfort of his armchair hundreds of miles away.
Apologies, I didn't appreciate you were there with the rioters in Southport.
Apologies accepted.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
So you are in Southport? Thought not…
Never said I was, no one is, but I’m not the one making unfounded allegations about the people booing Starmer earlier today.
Its unfounded to suggest those doing to booing were locals.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
From your man on the scene.
Never claimed to be on the scene.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
You now ‘suspect’ rather than know. 👍
Yeah 'now'.
Glad you got there in the end. 👍
I started there.
That highlighted element was posted over an hour ago.
Meanwhile you were the one banging on about on the spot and being definitive, while I was not.
No, you added the rider after being called out by more than one person. Wasn’t what you said at first.
Still the rider you added at a later time was welcome. Well done for getting there. 👍
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
Because that's how legalisation works.
How many people go out and buy illegal, stronger booze.
When its legal, most people just go to the shop and buy what they want.
LOL
You do realise how strong standard strength spirits are, do you?
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
Because that's how legalisation works.
How many people go out and buy illegal, stronger booze.
When its legal, most people just go to the shop and buy what they want.
But there's nothing stopping people buying really strong alcohol, is there?
No, but there is a requirement to be honest and truthful about what strength it is and then people can make an educated decision.
And most people don't choose to buy overproofed drinks. I mean I've drank overproof rum, and absinthe, and other high alcohol drinks but I know what I'm getting into when I do and can drink an appropriate measure as a result.
Most of the time people can and do choose lower-strength drinks. Even spirits are typically lower strength than that which exists under prohibition, let alone beer or wine.
Under prohibition the higher strengths tends to dominate and worse people don't know what they're actually getting when they buy it.
Some quite interesting stuff there, and some caution.
The solar farms one will make potentially a big difference. The Green Belt stuff looks sensible, which is one that could blow up unpredictably in Nimbyland.
The prisons one is an interesting one.
Changing the NPPF is always fraught, as the word by word nuances have a major impact on Planning Appeals.
Some things not addressed that need to be addressed - notable rural housing in small communities, but a lot of that requires action outside Planning Law.
Is it me, or is it a touch bad-tempered today, whilst I've been away supervising gas engineers?
I feel a need for a pineapple-topped pizza.
My photo quota today is a new Olympic Sport - autobalance. It's a valid sport even though a judge is present. I'm not sure which country this is. I have lots of ideas for other events.
I was quite taken by a suggestion in a trying-hard-but-not-quite-getting-there suggestion from the CIHT that rising bollards should have a bleep-warning for VIPs (Visually Impaired People) before they rise. Not totally convinced that that is to the left on the pareto chart.
* Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation.
Yeah, it’s been right cranky the last couple of days.
Dead children are secondary to people either wanting to bash migration, or as has happened today, wanting to sneer at a frightened community who dared to boo Starmer.
On a plus note the cycle route I use to work has had in the last couple of weeks a lot of work to not only improve access to it but also to remove the nasty bits where roots prose through the pathway.
One of the two gas engineers who was fitting the new boiler this morning * was a lady who retired from the police several years ago in her 30s because she was divorced with 3 young kids and could not find childcare to handle the shift pattern.
Not sure just where prices are now except that British Gas BFONT their customers with an inverted porcupine, but I paid £2750 for a Baxi Platinum Compact with a 10 year guarantee (+£250 over 5 year guarantee), which included a Magnaclean (iron filing remover), Gas Safety Cert and a supplied shower replaced. Trader below VAT threshold. 2 people 5 hours. That is probably a price for likely repeat business, as she will get ~3 services/safety certs per annum from me, plus be a regular supplier.
I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I had a Baxi fitted a few years ago which included some new pipework and it was 1850 GBP and I got a discount on the boiler as I worked for them at the time.
Since then had to replace the expansion vessel and plate to plate.
Not a fan of Combi boilers as it’s a pressured system.
Yours is probably made at the Preston site which, when I worked there had a BNP councillor.
The engineer is keen on Baxi because of ease of maintenance (I'm normally a Bosch Greenstar or Ideal shop), aka "in Baxi the pieces that need replacing tend to be easier to get to" - which is fair enough.
Plus works closely with a colleague and says she can deliver a prompt response for me on things that go pop, which is very important for an LL. I had one boiler that died in December; a rapid response is very important then.
Is it me, or is it a touch bad-tempered today, whilst I've been away supervising gas engineers?
I feel a need for a pineapple-topped pizza.
My photo quota today is a new Olympic Sport - autobalance. It's a valid sport even though a judge is present. I'm not sure which country this is. I have lots of ideas for other events.
I was quite taken by a suggestion in a trying-hard-but-not-quite-getting-there suggestion from the CIHT that rising bollards should have a bleep-warning for VIPs (Visually Impaired People) before they rise. Not totally convinced that that is to the left on the pareto chart.
* Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation.
Yeah, it’s been right cranky the last couple of days.
Dead children are secondary to people either wanting to bash migration, or as has happened today, wanting to sneer at a frightened community who dared to boo Starmer.
On a plus note the cycle route I use to work has had in the last couple of weeks a lot of work to not only improve access to it but also to remove the nasty bits where roots prose through the pathway.
One of the two gas engineers who was fitting the new boiler this morning * was a lady who retired from the police several years ago in her 30s because she was divorced with 3 young kids and could not find childcare to handle the shift pattern.
Not sure just where prices are now except that British Gas BFONT their customers with an inverted porcupine, but I paid £2750 for a Baxi Platinum Compact with a 10 year guarantee (+£250 over 5 year guarantee), which included a Magnaclean (iron filing remover), Gas Safety Cert and a supplied shower replaced. Trader below VAT threshold. 2 people 5 hours. That is probably a price for likely repeat business, as she will get ~3 services/safety certs per annum from me, plus be a regular supplier.
I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I had a Baxi fitted a few years ago which included some new pipework and it was 1850 GBP and I got a discount on the boiler as I worked for them at the time.
Since then had to replace the expansion vessel and plate to plate.
Not a fan of Combi boilers as it’s a pressured system.
Yours is probably made at the Preston site which, when I worked there had a BNP councillor.
The engineer is keen on Baxi because of ease of maintenance (I'm normally a Bosch Greenstar or Ideal shop), aka "in Baxi the pieces that need replacing tend to be easier to get to" - which is fair enough.
Plus works closely with a colleague and says she can deliver a prompt response for me on things that go pop, which is very important for an LL. I had one boiler that died in December; a rapid response is very important then.
Yes, a Baxi boiler is very easy to service and replace parts. A new pump or fan or heat exchanger just take out and drop a new one in. Takes minutes
Fortunately when we have had a problem it has been in the summer. Like swapping the plate to plate in June.
The plumber we use likes Worcester Bosch and Baxi. Not a fan of Ideal and Vaillant.
Reeves botches up her tax plan Miliband fks up energy policy Cooper has riots on the streets And Starmer gets booed for a 2 minute visit. ( why did he even bother ? )
And they already have their paws all over the triumphalist shitcanning of Rwanda, the optics of which are horrid in this context.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
The pair of you are completely deluded. I am no fan of Labour and fully expect it to go pearshaped at some stage, but really it hasn't yet and won't for awhile. We are still in the honeymoon period and will be for sometime. The fact you think it is all over now just shows how biased you both are.
Basically, nothing nakes sense. It seems statistically unlikely this fella was one of the handful of Rwandan muslims - but it seems pretty unlikely he's Rwandan anyway, and apparently he is. So if not Islam, what? Even incels don't tend to get stabby with the preteens. Random madmen tend not to be so focussed. Guess we'll find out eventually.
On the subject of crimes of unclear motive, I'd almost forgotten about the Trump sassytempt. That seems to have had remarkably little follow up.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
For starters, my own personal experience. I'd prefer a legal toot on something less strong that won't leave me drooling in a car park somewhere and waking up three days later with no trousers on (google some spice trip reports if you want to be sad and laugh at the same time.)
You can also look at alcohol prohibition in the US, people gravitated towards stronger drinks - pure spirits - during prohibition as they were easier to manufacture and transport and gave more of a kick. Most people, given the choice between having a couple of beers or a bottle of wine, vs necking a bottle of bathtub gin prefer the former. Alcohol consumption patterns in the US, while hard to track, suggest people don't always opt for the strongest choice when multiple choices are available.
Similarly decriminalisation in the US hasn't led to most people picking super strength knockout skunk by default. As I say, most people prefer to get a little buzzy and be sociable rather than pick the first knockout train to obiliteration-ville. The people who don't, will have less access to the stronger stuff, as there will be less demand - and therefore less extant supply - for it.
I think you have just explained why the cocaine and fentanyl trade in the USA do not exist. Phew. Actually lots of if not most people who take drugs take them because they want to get fucked up (and say so in those terms). Not because they are after the agreeable buzz of 3 glasses of screwtop merlot.
There was a rather smart post on here earlier by someone about the way the UK is increasingly resembling sectarian Northern Ireland, with different groups that don't integrate.
Even if this tragedy turns out to have nothing to do with recent immigration, it's clear where the tensions are.
There’s three dead girls in large fridges at the moment who will never live the lives they had hoped for or their parents had hoped for and people in that community are scared and frightened and your posting shit like This.
Should they not be angry, just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s life’. People expect to be safe in their communities. The d demographic of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Scared and frightened people in a community are just racist in your world.
Give your head a wobble.
@kyf_100 is generally one of the good guys on here. I think you might be misinterpreting him
There are plenty of the usual suspects posting the usual woke lefty cant
Thanks.
What I'm saying in the above post is that _even if_ online reports are false, and the killer has no links to fundamentalism, isn't an immigrant, isn't even an ethnic minority... the reaction to the killing is very telling.
People are fed up with violence coming from what they regard as immigrant communities, be it up in Leeds in the Roma community, or the Manchester Airport debacle. To name but two from *checks notes* this month.
People are lashing out and blaming immigrants before it's actually been proven - but that in itself says a lot about how unchecked mass immigration has driven a massive wedge through our society. As per the poster earlier whose name escapes me, who commented that the whole of the UK is increasingly resembling a sectarian Northern Ireland.
It was me on the previous thread:
"Southport. Regardless of who did this incident.
Racial tensions can be temporary, such as when a large number of West Indians came and cultural grating, occured, particularly with youths.
However there was enough common culture (and goodwill) to enable integration within a generation or two.
However, when there is no cultural commonality, and a strong religious culture of a different religion which is all encompasing and frowns on marriage to outsiders, you end up with segregation.
What we are now seeing is a Falls and Bogside in many mainland cities and the working class native population reacting by starting to go all Shankhill/Riverside."
Only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim, with 90% either Catholic or Protestant, so a religious motivation is unlikely.
Cannabis induced paranoia and psychosis wouldn't surprise me though.
Potential ecological fallacy there.
I wouldn't rule out him being hooked on Andrew Tate stuff or something.
My personal theory is that (if not a complete loony) then it's going to be incel related. Look at the targets.
What 6-11 year old girls - I don’t think so and it’s not worth speculating
I think the target is fans of Taylor Swift, just as the target in Manchester was fans of Ariana Grande.
But wasn't the Manchester attack because being a young girl at a pop concert was unIslamic?
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
Incel is a pretty good theory. He was apparently awkward and introverted, from a somewhat itinerant immigrant Rwandan family. 17 years old, no local girls remotely interested? A Taylor Swift gym and yoga class, staffed by pretty female teachers and young and mainly white girls - that would satisfy his angry sexual inadequacy and sense of social alienation
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
I wouldn't be surprised if it was synthetic cannabinoids, tbh. Utterly endemic with the yoof, particularly in deprived towns. Another failure of prohibition.
Peter Hitchens will approve of this post
Probably not my last sentence, though!
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
What makes you think making the less strong stuff legal will get people to stop using the stronger stuff illegally?
Because that's how legalisation works.
How many people go out and buy illegal, stronger booze.
When its legal, most people just go to the shop and buy what they want.
LOL
You do realise how strong standard strength spirits are, do you?
Thought not.
Why did you think not? Yes, I do.
37.5% - 40% abv is typical standard strength spirits.
Some lower strength spirits and spirit liquers are 15% to 20%
While other spirits can have higher strengths. The overproof rum I like is 63% ABV but that's not standard strength.
The clue is that the ABV is printed on the label.
Under prohibition over 100 proof (aka 50% ABV) was often typical.
Comments
Almost certainly these were pathetic civil servants who couldn't stand the heat and have therefore been rightly removed from the kitchen. If they hadn't done anything wrong, then the key is to give as good as you get. You'll be respected for that. But I bet they had cause civil servants.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/30/southport-attack-live-children-injured/
In order for anything to change for the better requires people to make arguments for it, eventually if enough people do the Overton Window can move and what was once absurd eventually becomes policy.
When I was young I argued for equal marriage for homosexuals, that was considered absurd at the time and would never be adopted by any party. Eventually it was. Now anyone who rejects it is considered extreme, not those of us who advocated it.
What I advocate is not absurd, even if its not currently popular, and is needed to fix our problems. Not only that, it has been implemented in other countries and when it has been done, it works.
That's pretty much Southport.
It is beyond bleak. Mass immigration has been a catastrophic failure, across rhe west, and Britain has got a particularly bad case
You could argue it is karmic revenge for the British Empire. There is some sense in that, if you are looking down in Olympian Judgment. But it doesn't mean modern Brits, who do not remember Empire and see no beneits of it, will forever meekly accept this state of affairs. They surely will not
Thanks for allowing me to stay. Appreciated. Look forward to your reports from the front line in Lebanon from the comfort of your armchair in North West England.
There is going to have to be a statement of some kind.
Social media strikes again.
If you're a qualified professional you should be able to get on with your job doing what you know how to do, without someone else looking at it first.
If the regulations are broken it should be dealt with retrospectively, same as anyone else who breaks the law.
A few racist bigots like yourself want to make every little thing into race, but the rest of the country does not and moves on.
I don't deploy sarcasm very often - it's the lowest form of wit.
In Japan, if someone wants to start building something that's exactly what they do.
They have to conform to regulations, but they don't need to ask permission of anyone first in order to do so.
The first a neighbour knows that next door is building a home on their land, is when the builders go in to start working.
Just trying to help you save on the typing!
FWIW, I don't think your incel theory is any worse any other. No apparent motivation really makes sense.
If I was Bart would have seen me.
Shotgun every situation with manic predictions of every kind and yes some of them will by coincidence happen to be right - yet if the polar opposite had happened then other ones would have been correct instead. That's what happens when you cover all bases manically.
Not wishing to stereotype, I can only think of one such woman out of many I have worked with professionally who would dream of doing something like this.
Police riot vans and officers are standing guard outside the mosque, amid chants of “No surrender!” and “English till I die!” from sections of the crowd.
I don't reckon those EDL favourite songs would be chosen by many locals. If I was a parent of one of the murdered girls, I'd be bloody furious at this appropriation of my grief by the far right.
I would be much much more wary on building regs than planning, but it’s fair to say most building failures - Grenfell, asbestos, RAAC, fungal deaths etc - are due to the building regs themselves being poorly designed rather than non compliance.
However, I would not be surprised by online radicalisation. Perhaps Islamic, perhaps not. He seems to have been quite careful in his targetting. This was not a random spasm, he carefully selected a group of victims at some distance from his home, and in an obscure building. He must have reconnoitred
Once you get into sky scrapers or tower blocks, I think its reasonable to set regulations but land in town/city centres should be zoned as acceptable for tower blocks etc.
There is a world of difference between booing someone and violent disorder.
No surprise that the Russians are shit stirring. What’s depressing is that we haven’t managed to inoculate ourselves against it.
That shitheads travel to scenes of tragedies is not an unfounded allegation, its a well known fact.
The Black and Tans have entered the chat, along with General Dwyer.
You're the one making definitive unsubstantiated claims like these were "locals".
I'm saying I suspect (not know) that they're not, based on past events and knowledge, which is the only reasonable thing to do.
For anyone with actual footage - how many drunk football hooligans types are present?
Make weed cheap, legal and taxable, and you'd get regulated supply at safe dosages and the tax revenue might even go some way to plugging Rachel Reeves' £20bn hole.
Prohibition just incentivises unregulated, stronger research chemicals that are easier and cheaper to import in bulk. See also how Fentanyl has taken over the US.
Spice is a big problem in UK inner cities and small deprived towns, and I don't think most people of my generation or older realise how much more dangerous these drugs are than the weed and pills of our student days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willkommenskultur
Ooops
“Data released by the German Interior Ministry on Tuesday showed that crimes in Europe's largest economy have reached their highest peak since 2016.
The data, which sparked widespread debate, shows that last year, 41 percent of all crime suspects were foreigners, or persons without German citizenship. Foreigners in German represent only 15 percent of the population.”
https://english.aawsat.com/world/4958521-german-interior-minister-higher-migration-led-rise-crimes
At some point, your feeble and effete bisexual social climbing “golf club member” Labour voting faux reality will yield to the cold hard thrust of red-blooded heterosexual facts
Reeves botches up her tax plan
Miliband fks up energy policy
Cooper has riots on the streets
And Starmer gets booed for a 2 minute visit. ( why did he even bother ? )
There’s not going to be a race war. Most people rub along just fine. There’s more that unites us than divides us. Perhaps some people need to stop stoking division and blaming communities. Inflaming tensions is not helpful.
I don’t want to get banned but there are hints on t’net that this is more than what we are allowed to see
Nonetheless, it could really just be a rando 17 year old psycho with a grudge against pretty pale females. This is not unknown
Very sad
That highlighted element was posted over an hour ago.
Meanwhile you were the one banging on about on the spot and being definitive, while I was not.
How many people go out and buy illegal, stronger booze.
When its legal, most people just go to the shop and buy what they want.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
That is all...
You can also look at alcohol prohibition in the US, people gravitated towards stronger drinks - pure spirits - during prohibition as they were easier to manufacture and transport and gave more of a kick. Most people, given the choice between having a couple of beers or a bottle of wine, vs necking a bottle of bathtub gin prefer the former. Alcohol consumption patterns in the US, while hard to track, suggest people don't always opt for the strongest choice when multiple choices are available.
Similarly decriminalisation in the US hasn't led to most people picking super strength knockout skunk by default. As I say, most people prefer to get a little buzzy and be sociable rather than pick the first knockout train to obiliteration-ville. The people who don't, will have less access to the stronger stuff, as there will be less demand - and therefore less extant supply - for it.
Plus works closely with a colleague and says she can deliver a prompt response for me on things that go pop, which is very important for an LL. I had one boiler that died in December; a rapid response is very important then.
(like the song though)
Still the rider you added at a later time was welcome. Well done for getting there. 👍
You do realise how strong standard strength spirits are, do you?
Thought not.
And most people don't choose to buy overproofed drinks. I mean I've drank overproof rum, and absinthe, and other high alcohol drinks but I know what I'm getting into when I do and can drink an appropriate measure as a result.
Most of the time people can and do choose lower-strength drinks. Even spirits are typically lower strength than that which exists under prohibition, let alone beer or wine.
Under prohibition the higher strengths tends to dominate and worse people don't know what they're actually getting when they buy it.
The solar farms one will make potentially a big difference. The Green Belt stuff looks sensible, which is one that could blow up unpredictably in Nimbyland.
The prisons one is an interesting one.
Changing the NPPF is always fraught, as the word by word nuances have a major impact on Planning Appeals.
Some things not addressed that need to be addressed - notable rural housing in small communities, but a lot of that requires action outside Planning Law.
Watch how the CPO reforms work with this.
Fortunately when we have had a problem it has been in the summer. Like swapping the plate to plate in June.
The plumber we use likes Worcester Bosch and Baxi. Not a fan of Ideal and Vaillant.
Guess we'll find out eventually.
On the subject of crimes of unclear motive, I'd almost forgotten about the Trump sassytempt. That seems to have had remarkably little follow up.
37.5% - 40% abv is typical standard strength spirits.
Some lower strength spirits and spirit liquers are 15% to 20%
While other spirits can have higher strengths. The overproof rum I like is 63% ABV but that's not standard strength.
The clue is that the ABV is printed on the label.
Under prohibition over 100 proof (aka 50% ABV) was often typical.