Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
That's not what the story says. It quotes BCC as saying they will only give any allocation at all - i.e. a non-preference allocation - if evidence of financial hardship can be provided. Otherwise, stay in the private sector.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
Of course. You've cracked the conundrum.
From the Buckinghamshire website;
Some grammar schools give higher priority to qualified children in receipt of Pupil Premium. Additionally, some grammar schools have a limited number of places available for unqualified children in receipt of Pupil Premium, if they achieve a certain score in the Secondary Transfer Test (slightly lower than the usual qualification score of 121)...
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
But going back to that example in Coventry - that cyclist will have been able to see the car as she approached the junction. She didn't take evasive action because the car was stationary and she reasonably assumed that the car was going to wait for her to pass until pulling into the road.
Her choice to ride a cycle, which makes you more at risk from accidents and serious injury or even death than driving or travelling in a car. A motorbike even more so.
Now yes the driver was also at fault (my original point was just the offence in question deserved a community order not jail). However if you choose to ride a bike which is harder to see and makes you more vulnerable on the roads you need to take extra care at all times, especially at junctions, roundabouts and on busy roads and when overtaking for your own protection if nothing else
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
Not what I took from the article: they refused preferred school outright, and said a place could be found at another school, but wanted to confirm in was in-year not for next year. Then mistakenly thought they had to ask for proof of poverty. But we'd need to see all the emails.
i recommend Netflix TV series The Turning Point, on the War on Terror since 9/11
Our abandonment of Afhganistan was utterly shameful
Lessons
1. America should have eliminated, one way or another, everyone in Guantanamo right from the off. China would have done exactly that. Stop pretending we are "better than China", it is western exceptionalism and it cripples us
2. We need to wise up re Islamism. Good fences make good neighbours. We need fences
We should have just killed Bin Laden, then got out and massively tightened our borders
Striking how Sinner was able to get over the line at the crucial time. If Draper is to win a slam he needs to get that ability. Is it mental? Draper has the game, the serve, the power.
Draper still going despite vomiting twice on court
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
Guanciale and pecorino, not pancetta and parmesan
Delia says pancetta* and parmesan, so pancetta and parmesan it is.
(*Actually Delia says bacon and parmesan in her Complete Cookery COurse but that was printed in 1981 when pancetta didn't exist.)
Delia isn't cream wrong, but she's wrong
Guaciale releases far more fat, and pecorino has a different flavour to parmesan
Guaciale is an even more recent invention for Carbonara. Originally it was with bacon.
Guaciale was invented to make the best carbonara, which takes slightly longer to cook
Cream was mixed into other ingredients to make a quick carbonara substitute
Your cream, bacon, (mushroom?) and cheese with pasta will never be carbonara to anyone that knows carbonara
“Your”. I’ve never made carbonara with cream. I’m just not a fan of misplaced snobbery.
The story that most experts agree on is that an Italian chef, Renato Gualandi, first made it in 1944 at a dinner in Riccione for the US army with guests including Harold Macmillan. “The Americans had fabulous bacon, very good cream, some cheese and powdered egg yolks,” Gualandi later recalled. Cesari dismisses myths that carbonara was the food of 18th-century Italian charcoal workers as “ahistorical”.
For Italians born after boom years, carbonara has an unalterable set of ingredients: pork jowl, Roman pecorino cheese, eggs and pepper. But early recipes are surprisingly varied. The oldest was printed in Chicago in 1952 and featured Italian bacon, not pork jowl. Italian recipes from around the same time include everything from gruyère (1954, in the magazine La Cucina Italiana) to “prosciutto, and thinly sliced sautéd mushrooms” (1958, Rome’s Tre Scalini restaurant). Pork jowl didn’t come to replace bacon until as recently as the 1990s.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
That's not what the story says. It quotes BCC as saying they will only give any allocation at all - i.e. a non-preference allocation - if evidence of financial hardship can be provided. Otherwise, stay in the private sector.
The response from the council spokesperson quoted by @carnforth above does back up my interpretation. If that's right, parents making the switch from private to state from now on will be offered whatever allocation the council makes, take it or leave it. No jumping of queues on oversubscribed schools.
Edit sorry got this wrong about queue jumping but the article was also wrong in saying education wouldn't be provided with out proof of not affording the fees.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
That's not what the story says. It quotes BCC as saying they will only give any allocation at all - i.e. a non-preference allocation - if evidence of financial hardship can be provided. Otherwise, stay in the private sector.
The response from the council spokesperson quoted by @carnforth above does back up my interpretation. If that's right, parents making the switch from private to state from now on will be offered whatever allocation the council makes, take it or leave it. No jumping of queues on oversubscribed schools.
But where are you getting this jumping the queues loophole theory from to begin with?
Striking how Sinner was able to get over the line at the crucial time. If Draper is to win a slam he needs to get that ability. Is it mental? Draper has the game, the serve, the power.
Draper still going despite vomiting twice on court
He does this a lot. Once he shook hands at the end of a match and went over and vomited in a bin.
I wonder how much a problem for the Republicans that essentially all remaining sensible key people in that party are voting Harris?
The GOP appeals to a different demographic now. It seems to me that the US is becoming more like Latin America. Due to more Hispanics? Dunno. But Trump is much more like a Latin politician than a traditional WASP in his demeanour, and appeal.
"It's not your father's GOP" is certainly true in spades.
The GOP is now largely white working class, whereas in the 1950s and 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the Democrats were largely white working class.
The Black vote is still strongly Democrat as it has been since LBJ's civil rights laws.
The swing voters now are Hispanics and college educated, well paid, middle class whites and the latter used to be the strongest GOP group
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
I sometimes wonder how much the Napoleonic wars loomed over us in the run up to WW1. We all think of them as history, but I assume some WW1 generals had grandfathers who had fought at Waterloo. Our reference point (we all have it, I think) of “the post war era” does feel like it’s on the way out, as the global consensus breaks down.
Not many from Waterloo. Say you are 20 in 1815, have children when you are 30 in 1825, they have children 1855, those children are 60 in 1915. But there's a lot of wars which loom more closely - Crimea and South Africa and Khartoum and China and the Indian mutiny.
The classic Napoleonic one is that Jackie Fisher, the Admiral of the Fleet in WW1 who oversaw the early use of submarines and aircraft carriers, was introduced into the Royal Navy as a naval cadet by the last of Nelson's Captains to be in the service, in 1854. That was Admiral Sir William Parker, who had also been present at the Glorious First of June in 1794 as a Captain's Servant.
We sometimes forget that Victorians could have children quite late. I read about one yesterday who was widowed twice and had his final child in his 70s with his third wife. Either dutiful or frisky.
Sort of tangentially related to that, in Winston Churchill's private secretary's memoirs, there is an entry about the death of the last person he knew who had met the great Duke of Wellington. An interesting connection between two of England's greatest heroes.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
That's not what the story says. It quotes BCC as saying they will only give any allocation at all - i.e. a non-preference allocation - if evidence of financial hardship can be provided. Otherwise, stay in the private sector.
The response from the council spokesperson quoted by @carnforth above does back up my interpretation. If that's right, parents making the switch from private to state from now on will be offered whatever allocation the council makes, take it or leave it. No jumping of queues on oversubscribed schools.
I really don't think it does. The response says you cannot have ANY state school place unless you can demonstrate poverty.
I'm puzzled that we read the same things and came to such different conclusions.
Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
Cheap date. Probably has a secret locker full of Montblancs.
Aren't Montblancs a bit ... well ... the sort of thing JD Vance might have? Kind of like a Hugo Boss suit or a Tesla Cybertruck, worn or used by aspirational klutzes with no self-confidence.
I remember far too many of them belonging to salesmen or consultants in shiny suits.
I brought back six pens from the RSS Conference in Brighton which I may have mentioned. Two sets of three. Three with ADR UK logo and three with the journals A/B/C. Why are you backing away slowly?
Five years ago I would have been relaxed about this, but they're inevitably expensive, high-carb and gluten-free bread tastes like unpleasant cardboard. Working men's cafes have higher quality food.
Judge orders disclosure of all the evidence relating to Trump's activities on January 6 later this month, as there has to be a hearing to evaluate how much of the evidence is not admissible due to the SCOTIS immunity ruling.
So it will be all over the media.
This is Judge Chutkan, who has taken the position that "I am here to hold a trial for an indicted defendant in my Court. The process of the Election is not my concern".
It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.
I don’t think it will, at least not under the current management.
I have to talk to journalists in my job and the contrast between those at the Times/Sunday times/FT and the Telegraph is massive. The former check what quotes I’m comfortable with and ask open questions; the latter are friendly enough but very obviously have an “angle” and never check before quoting. The Grauniad is somewhere between the two.
Judge orders disclosure of all the evidence relating to Trump's activities on January 6 later this month, as there has to be a hearing to evaluate how much of the evidence is not admissible due to the SCOTIS immunity ruling.
So it will be all over the media.
This is Judge Chutkan, who has taken the position that "I am here to hold a trial for an indicted defendant in my Court. The process of the Election is not my concern".
I can't keep up to be honest. One day the judges are kicking any Trump stuff into the long grass that is marked as 'After November' the next day one of them is pushing for an early trial/decision on one of his many misdemeanours.
Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
I've a Pilot G2-07 here, which model became popular among computer types after Linus Torvalds (the linux guy) was seen using them, and also a Uniball Jetstream. I shall have to try Kamala's pens.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
That's not what the story says. It quotes BCC as saying they will only give any allocation at all - i.e. a non-preference allocation - if evidence of financial hardship can be provided. Otherwise, stay in the private sector.
The response from the council spokesperson quoted by @carnforth above does back up my interpretation. If that's right, parents making the switch from private to state from now on will be offered whatever allocation the council makes, take it or leave it. No jumping of queues on oversubscribed schools.
I really don't think it does. The response says you cannot have ANY state school place unless you can demonstrate poverty.
I'm puzzled that we read the same things and came to such different conclusions.
But councils can't do that, because they're required by law to ensure that their are sufficient school places for their residents.
(Bit of a bugger for councils who have retained the 11+; quite a lot of their grammar school places go to pupils from out-of-area.)
So they can't say "no place at all". But they can say "no grammar school places, unless you qualify via the Pupil Premium thing." Depends what was in the rest of the letter.
But school transfers outside the normal time (say people move house) are always a pain.
Judge orders disclosure of all the evidence relating to Trump's activities on January 6 later this month, as there has to be a hearing to evaluate how much of the evidence is not admissible due to the SCOTIS immunity ruling.
So it will be all over the media.
This is Judge Chutkan, who has taken the position that "I am here to hold a trial for an indicted defendant in my Court. The process of the Election is not my concern".
I can't keep up to be honest. One day the judges are kicking any Trump stuff into the long grass that is marked as 'After November' the next day one of them is pushing for an early trial/decision on one of his many misdemeanours.
This may not help . But it will help me.
The one delayed is the sentencing hearing in New York for the Stormy Daniels hush money as a way to stop the public hearing about his incident with the porn star whilst he was having another long-term affair with a woman whilst his wife was not available because she was pregnant, so as to prevent it undermining his prospects in 2016. That is Judge Merchan.
Judge Chutkan is the formidable one in DC with the sprawling case dealing with election manipulation in 2020. She wrote the amazing Judgement including phrases such as "Presidents are not kings" and referring to the murder of St Thomas a Becket as an example. She was the one appealed to SCOTUS on Presidential Immunity, who gave a set of confused principles about which evidence was admissible, and she has decided there needs to be a preliminary hearing so it all needs to be in public.
The stuff coming out I think is all the stuff submitted to the Grand Jury, in response to a request from Jack Smith the Prosecutor. So it will all be public, with no commentary, and the media will be crawling all over it in the run up to the Election.
So ...fun. And Mr Trump is not Happy. He's probably Grumpy. The vid linked is quite informative.
It's sad that I see that URL and immediately assume it's nonsense. I hope the Times doesn't go that way.
Is half vegan a bit like half virgin?
The idea is that half the food in the cafes will be vegan. The unsold half, presumably. Presumably because they hate their customers.
Who goes to the NT for a proper meal? You might get a cup of tea and a piece of cake possibly.
I have several people whom I take in with my "Me + Guest" membership, and they buy lunch - which seems a good plan.
I'm going with a friend next week, who used to run the visitor side of the South Foreland Lighthouse for the NT. We will both check in, as the property visited gets about £4 per member visiting.
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
"Rachel Reeves faces Whitehall revolt over spending cuts Departments set to reject chancellor’s demands as ‘just not possible’ and ask for more money instead"
"Rachel Reeves faces Whitehall revolt over spending cuts Departments set to reject chancellor’s demands as ‘just not possible’ and ask for more money instead"
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
I find these decisions a bit odd, as they allow any spoiler who manages to get onto the ballot to screw up the whole timetable by saying "I've changed my mind".
"The North Carolina court of appeals made a last-minute decision on Friday to remove Kennedy’s name from presidential ballots, creating a scramble to reprint ballots and begin sending them to voters.
In Michigan, a state appellate court also ruled on Friday that Kennedy’s name as the Natural Law party’s candidate must be stricken from ballots. The Michigan secretary of state’s office said it would appeal to the state supreme court."
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
But going back to that example in Coventry - that cyclist will have been able to see the car as she approached the junction. She didn't take evasive action because the car was stationary and she reasonably assumed that the car was going to wait for her to pass until pulling into the road.
Her choice to ride a cycle, which makes you more at risk from accidents and serious injury or even death than driving or travelling in a car. A motorbike even more so.
Now yes the driver was also at fault (my original point was just the offence in question deserved a community order not jail). However if you choose to ride a bike which is harder to see and makes you more vulnerable on the roads you need to take extra care at all times, especially at junctions, roundabouts and on busy roads and when overtaking for your own protection if nothing else
You are a dangerous driver blaming the cyclist. Would you come out with this "it's your fault for choosing to cycle" crap if the cyclist was a child?
"Rachel Reeves faces Whitehall revolt over spending cuts Departments set to reject chancellor’s demands as ‘just not possible’ and ask for more money instead"
No. If public services are to deliver, they need funding. Another decade or more of austerity solutions will not wash. As has been apparent for a long time Reeves is stuck in the coventional thinking of the 90s. You have to invest to deliver.
That’s not to say that efficiencies can’t be made. But to do so will involve cutting out the control freakery of the Tory years and giving Departments freedom to deliver. The Tories tried to deliver ambitious outcomes without changing the fundamentals. Labour needs to be bolder.
i recommend Netflix TV series The Turning Point, on the War on Terror since 9/11
Our abandonment of Afhganistan was utterly shameful
Lessons
1. America should have eliminated, one way or another, everyone in Guantanamo right from the off. China would have done exactly that. Stop pretending we are "better than China", it is western exceptionalism and it cripples us
2. We need to wise up re Islamism. Good fences make good neighbours. We need fences
The National Trust has been captured by a left-wing cabal.
I cancelled my membership several years ago, and haven't looked back.
I’ll still visit from time to time but cancelled my membership, not due to ongoing ideological capture, due to during COVID not being able to get access to the places I like to go. They’d announce a time tickets would be open to be booked and you’d go on and nothing. Check a few hours later, nothing. They’d then be released at a totally different time.
Also they promised a discount on renewal but the renewal came through at full price. Apparently you had to claim it online.
I’m going to get Netflix to watch the Vince McMahon documentary series so may well give this a go.
It's beautifully shot, slightly surreal, and Jeff Goldblum is perfectly cast as an insecure narcissistic Zeus
More importantly, it's well written.
The cast is excellent all round. Regarding the perfect casting, apparently it was originally going to be Hugh Grant, but he dropped out because of scheduling problems. A happy accident, perhaps.
Sixth-generation wire-maker blames Brexit for shredding its business Owner of Ormiston Wire in London urges Keir Starmer not to forget small manufacturers in his dealings with EU https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/sixth-generation-uk-wire-maker-blames-brexit-shredding-business ...Make UK, the manufacturers’ trade body, said figures showed the number of products being exported to the EU had been reduced by 80%, with small- and medium-sized businesses worst hit.
“Our exports have literally halved. We were making efforts to actually get more exports in Europe because British manufacturing was going down the toilet, which it has done now,” said Ormiston.
With Keir Starmer vowing to reset relations with the EU, Ormiston implored the new prime minister to consider the smaller firms who do not have access to the Treasury or Labour party conference to make their voices heard.
He added: “Make UK are the big guys, the British Aerospaces, the big manufacturers and organisations like the CBI [Confederation of British Industry]. We are irrelevant to them. But if you multiply me by a million little companies doing these little things, it does add up to a significant amount of British exports.
“It’s consequences, isn’t it? When politicians have a great idea, they don’t live with the consequences so they don’t care. By the time it all kicks in they are dead or in the House of Lords.”..
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
Keys is a very bitter man
Nothing will even beat Churchill’s rejoinder when Stafford Cripps insisted on seeing him immediately
“Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time”
Sixth-generation wire-maker blames Brexit for shredding its business Owner of Ormiston Wire in London urges Keir Starmer not to forget small manufacturers in his dealings with EU https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/sixth-generation-uk-wire-maker-blames-brexit-shredding-business ...Make UK, the manufacturers’ trade body, said figures showed the number of products being exported to the EU had been reduced by 80%, with small- and medium-sized businesses worst hit.
“Our exports have literally halved. We were making efforts to actually get more exports in Europe because British manufacturing was going down the toilet, which it has done now,” said Ormiston.
With Keir Starmer vowing to reset relations with the EU, Ormiston implored the new prime minister to consider the smaller firms who do not have access to the Treasury or Labour party conference to make their voices heard.
He added: “Make UK are the big guys, the British Aerospaces, the big manufacturers and organisations like the CBI [Confederation of British Industry]. We are irrelevant to them. But if you multiply me by a million little companies doing these little things, it does add up to a significant amount of British exports.
“It’s consequences, isn’t it? When politicians have a great idea, they don’t live with the consequences so they don’t care. By the time it all kicks in they are dead or in the House of Lords.”..
I can never forgive the idiot wing of the Tory party for what they have done. Utter backward looking clowns.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
p
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
But going back to that example in Coventry - that cyclist will have been able to see the car as she approached the junction. She didn't take evasive action because the car was stationary and she reasonably assumed that the car was going to wait for her to pass until pulling into the road.
Her choice to ride a cycle, which makes you more at risk from accidents and serious injury or even death than driving or travelling in a car. A motorbike even more so.
Now yes the driver was also at fault (my original point was just the offence in question deserved a community order not jail). However if you choose to ride a bike which is harder to see and makes you more vulnerable on the roads you need to take extra care at all times, especially at junctions, roundabouts and on busy roads and when overtaking for your own protection if nothing else
You are a dangerous driver blaming the cyclist. Would you come out with this "it's your fault for choosing to cycle" crap if the cyclist was a child?
Parents shouldn't allow their children to cycle on busy main roads anyway in my view.
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
Keys is a very bitter man
Nothing will even beat Churchill’s rejoinder when Stafford Cripps insisted on seeing him immediately
“Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time”
I suspect that half the Churchill anecdotes were either made up entirely, or said after the event.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
But going back to that example in Coventry - that cyclist will have been able to see the car as she approached the junction. She didn't take evasive action because the car was stationary and she reasonably assumed that the car was going to wait for her to pass until pulling into the road.
Her choice to ride a cycle, which makes you more at risk from accidents and serious injury or even death than driving or travelling in a car. A motorbike even more so.
Now yes the driver was also at fault (my original point was just the offence in question deserved a community order not jail). However if you choose to ride a bike which is harder to see and makes you more vulnerable on the roads you need to take extra care at all times, especially at junctions, roundabouts and on busy roads and when overtaking for your own protection if nothing else
You are a dangerous driver blaming the cyclist. Would you come out with this "it's your fault for choosing to cycle" crap if the cyclist was a child?
I wouldn't be surprised. A kid near me was killed as he cycled to school (driver arrested), but the car brains were suggesting that the parents were at fault for letting him do so.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
But going back to that example in Coventry - that cyclist will have been able to see the car as she approached the junction. She didn't take evasive action because the car was stationary and she reasonably assumed that the car was going to wait for her to pass until pulling into the road.
Her choice to ride a cycle, which makes you more at risk from accidents and serious injury or even death than driving or travelling in a car. A motorbike even more so.
Now yes the driver was also at fault (my original point was just the offence in question deserved a community order not jail). However if you choose to ride a bike which is harder to see and makes you more vulnerable on the roads you need to take extra care at all times, especially at junctions, roundabouts and on busy roads and when overtaking for your own protection if nothing else
You are a dangerous driver blaming the cyclist. Would you come out with this "it's your fault for choosing to cycle" crap if the cyclist was a child?
I wouldn't be surprised. A kid near me was killed as he cycled to school (driver arrested), but the car brains were suggesting that the parents were at fault for letting him do so.
You can't drive a car until 17, you shouldn't be able to cycle on a main road until the same age either
Sixth-generation wire-maker blames Brexit for shredding its business Owner of Ormiston Wire in London urges Keir Starmer not to forget small manufacturers in his dealings with EU https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/sixth-generation-uk-wire-maker-blames-brexit-shredding-business ...Make UK, the manufacturers’ trade body, said figures showed the number of products being exported to the EU had been reduced by 80%, with small- and medium-sized businesses worst hit.
“Our exports have literally halved. We were making efforts to actually get more exports in Europe because British manufacturing was going down the toilet, which it has done now,” said Ormiston.
With Keir Starmer vowing to reset relations with the EU, Ormiston implored the new prime minister to consider the smaller firms who do not have access to the Treasury or Labour party conference to make their voices heard.
He added: “Make UK are the big guys, the British Aerospaces, the big manufacturers and organisations like the CBI [Confederation of British Industry]. We are irrelevant to them. But if you multiply me by a million little companies doing these little things, it does add up to a significant amount of British exports.
“It’s consequences, isn’t it? When politicians have a great idea, they don’t live with the consequences so they don’t care. By the time it all kicks in they are dead or in the House of Lords.”..
Small exporting businesses have been clobbered by Brexit. I'm not sure what government and agencies can do about it, frustrating as it is for them.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
But going back to that example in Coventry - that cyclist will have been able to see the car as she approached the junction. She didn't take evasive action because the car was stationary and she reasonably assumed that the car was going to wait for her to pass until pulling into the road.
Her choice to ride a cycle, which makes you more at risk from accidents and serious injury or even death than driving or travelling in a car. A motorbike even more so.
Now yes the driver was also at fault (my original point was just the offence in question deserved a community order not jail). However if you choose to ride a bike which is harder to see and makes you more vulnerable on the roads you need to take extra care at all times, especially at junctions, roundabouts and on busy roads and when overtaking for your own protection if nothing else
You are a dangerous driver blaming the cyclist. Would you come out with this "it's your fault for choosing to cycle" crap if the cyclist was a child?
I wouldn't be surprised. A kid near me was killed as he cycled to school (driver arrested), but the car brains were suggesting that the parents were at fault for letting him do so.
You can't drive a car until 17, you shouldn't be able to cycle on a main road until the same age either
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
(Although the quote above reads like it is a response to a series of questions from the telegraph that ended up with “sure, yes we might get over 50% in a few years” rather than an actual policy)
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
It doesn’t bother me as such, it is just the pious claptrap about ‘saving the planet’’ as a justification. ‘Oh look at us, we’re being worthy’
Their scones are nowhere near as good now they don’t have butter as a shortening. The cakes still okay.
A scone just isn't worth having if it's not made with butter.
I enjoy a lot of vegan food, when it's proper food that simply doesn't happen to include any meat or dairy. But taking something and replacing its essential ingredient with an inferior alternative is a waste of time. I don't want an ersatz scone.
That’s an extraordinary answer. Presumably she doesn’t want video of her saying a number but she could have come up with a better response
That's weird because now would be a perfect time to announce that x claims had been rejected under the Tory government, but the incompetent halfwits had failed to deport them, but since the election we have already deported y, and are committed to making the system work by deporting failed claimants promptly and efficiently.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
It doesn’t bother me as such, it is just the pious claptrap about ‘saving the planet’’ as a justification. ‘Oh look at us, we’re being worthy’
Their scones are nowhere near as good now they don’t have butter as a shortening. The cakes still okay.
A scone just isn't worth having if it's not made with butter.
I enjoy a lot of vegan food, when it's proper food that simply doesn't happen to include any meat or dairy. But taking something and replacing its essential ingredient with an inferior alternative is a waste of time. I don't want an ersatz scone.
Completely agree. I’m a decent cook and make a decent scone. Once made some but as I had no butter I used Olivio. Utterly terrible. Always butter from then on.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
Yes, but:
The local authority has a *statutory duty* to provide an education to anyone under 18 in their area, for free.
They are *not* allowed - and I really mean not allowed - to means test it. The person who asked for that financial data may have committed an offence.
If the preferred schools are full, they should have offered places at another school instead. Then it is up to the parents to decide whether to take it, or either try and find the money somehow or go with home schooling.
Of course, the government could have avoided stories like this by introducing the policy for all fees from September 2025. But that would have been a sensible policy and VAT on private school fees is essentially red meat to appease those weirdos like BJO who haven't (unlike him) left the party yet.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
(Although the quote above reads like it is a response to a series of questions from the telegraph that ended up with “sure, yes we might get over 50% in a few years” rather than an actual policy)
Let’s face it. The Telegraph is just out to get the veins on it’s readership’s temples throbbing.
Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
(Although the quote above reads like it is a response to a series of questions from the telegraph that ended up with “sure, yes we might get over 50% in a few years” rather than an actual policy)
No, it’s up for a members vote so it is something they are actively considering,
Though quite why members should vote on the catering offer I don’t know.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
And now we can move onto the traditional "sticky toffee pudding" invented in the 1970s along with the microwave oven as the go-to dessert in every British restaurant.
The best pudding is fig tarte tatin, with a bit of crème fraîche. Sadly very rarely seen in actual French restaurants. I bet it’s a recent invention. Let me have a look..,
Quite venerable actually (the Apple version). End of the 19th century in a restaurant in the Sologne.
Which is a useful prompt to recommend you all read Le Grand Meulnes.
All proper puddings come with custard.
I'm imagining a Yorkshire pudding and black pudding toad in the hole, with custard.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
Yes, but:
The local authority has a *statutory duty* to provide an education to anyone under 18 in their area, for free.
They are *not* allowed - and I really mean not allowed - to means test it. The person who asked for that financial data may have committed an offence.
If the preferred schools are full, they should have offered places at another school instead. Then it is up to the parents to decide whether to take it, or either try and find the money somehow or go with home schooling.
Of course, the government could have avoided stories like this by introducing the policy for all fees from September 2025. But that would have been a sensible policy and VAT on private school fees is essentially red meat to appease those weirdos like BJO who haven't (unlike him) left the party yet.
Delaying the policy until September 2025 wouldn't have fixed the forthcoming issue - which is that most schools will be sized to cater for the expected school age population less an estimate for private school numbers and the popular schools will always be 100% full with a waiting list.
Worse I don't think Southern Bucks has that many crap schools and a lot of people come in from the surround counties filling up any spare spaces available - so it's perfectly possible that the issue the person in Bucks has is that there are NO places to accommodate the new intake.
And on the fact that Councils no longer have any ability to override the decision of the headmaster of an academy trust school and I can see December / January creating some very bad headlines for this Government. In fact the main Christmas holiday story almost writes itself.
Very interesting BBC article comparing building and fire strategy between a Council Tower Block, Invicta House (1970s), in Thanet with the Landmark Pinnacle (post-Grenfell), a private block in Canary Wharf.
Big contrasts as would be expected, in quality but also in fire strategy..
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
Keys is a very bitter man
Nothing will even beat Churchill’s rejoinder when Stafford Cripps insisted on seeing him immediately
“Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time”
I suspect that half the Churchill anecdotes were either made up entirely, or said after the event.
How about “the best off-the-cuff remarks take several hours preparation”?
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
(Although the quote above reads like it is a response to a series of questions from the telegraph that ended up with “sure, yes we might get over 50% in a few years” rather than an actual policy)
No, it’s up for a members vote so it is something they are actively considering,
Though quite why members should vote on the catering offer I don’t know.
Because it was raised as an resolution item by members of the trust and received sufficient support that it is resolution that needs to be voted on.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
Yes, but:
The local authority has a *statutory duty* to provide an education to anyone under 18 in their area, for free.
They are *not* allowed - and I really mean not allowed - to means test it. The person who asked for that financial data may have committed an offence.
If the preferred schools are full, they should have offered places at another school instead. Then it is up to the parents to decide whether to take it, or either try and find the money somehow or go with home schooling.
Of course, the government could have avoided stories like this by introducing the policy for all fees from September 2025. But that would have been a sensible policy and VAT on private school fees is essentially red meat to appease those weirdos like BJO who haven't (unlike him) left the party yet.
Delaying the policy until September 2025 wouldn't have fixed the forthcoming issue - which is that most schools will be sized to cater for the expected school age population less an estimate for private school numbers and the popular schools will always be 100% full with a waiting list.
Worse I don't think Southern Bucks has that many crap schools and a lot of people come in from the surround counties filling up any spare spaces available - so it's perfectly possible that the issue the person in Bucks has is that there are NO places to accommodate the new intake.
And on the fact that Councils no longer have any ability to override the decision of the headmaster of an academy trust school and I can see December / January creating some very bad headlines for this Government. In fact the main Christmas holiday story almost writes itself.
It would, however, have given much more time to sort it out. And time is not to be despised in these cases.
So leaving aside the merits of VAT on private school fees (there aren't really any merits to it, except political ones) introducing it in the way that has been done was utter stupidity.
Reeves is a chess champion. If she's this tactically short sighted I'm amazed she ever won a game.
We also come back to the key point - asking the parents for financial data to means test council provided schooling is unlawful. Whatever idiot sent that email, whatever the context, is an imbecile and needs the sack.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
And now we can move onto the traditional "sticky toffee pudding" invented in the 1970s along with the microwave oven as the go-to dessert in every British restaurant.
The best pudding is fig tarte tatin, with a bit of crème fraîche. Sadly very rarely seen in actual French restaurants. I bet it’s a recent invention. Let me have a look..,
Quite venerable actually (the Apple version). End of the 19th century in a restaurant in the Sologne.
Which is a useful prompt to recommend you all read Le Grand Meulnes.
All proper puddings come with custard.
I'm imagining a Yorkshire pudding and black pudding toad in the hole, with custard.
I'd rather eat pizza with pineapple on it.
We've covered that previously - TSE admits to drinking pineapple juice (at times) when eating pizza..
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
Keys is a very bitter man
Nothing will even beat Churchill’s rejoinder when Stafford Cripps insisted on seeing him immediately
“Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time”
Stafford Cripps was an absolute traitor; someone who put Russia ahead of his own country.
Having said that, he was rather useful during WW2.
That’s an extraordinary answer. Presumably she doesn’t want video of her saying a number but she could have come up with a better response
That's weird because now would be a perfect time to announce that x claims had been rejected under the Tory government, but the incompetent halfwits had failed to deport them, but since the election we have already deported y, and are committed to making the system work by deporting failed claimants promptly and efficiently.
The gem (also from Keys' thread) is even weirder...
Richard Keys @richardajkeys · 19h What a day for bumping into unpalatable people. I just saw Jamie Redknapp. Happily I needed a No2 which was much more pleasant than stopping to talk.
Keys is a very bitter man
Nothing will even beat Churchill’s rejoinder when Stafford Cripps insisted on seeing him immediately
“Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time”
I suspect that half the Churchill anecdotes were either made up entirely, or said after the event.
How about “the best off-the-cuff remarks take several hours preparation”?
Ask any comedian, who does the same apparently off-the-cuff show hundreds of times, and before that spent hours in clubs changing a word here and a word there of every joke, until it was ‘right’.
That’s an extraordinary answer. Presumably she doesn’t want video of her saying a number but she could have come up with a better response
That's weird because now would be a perfect time to announce that x claims had been rejected under the Tory government, but the incompetent halfwits had failed to deport them, but since the election we have already deported y, and are committed to making the system work by deporting failed claimants promptly and efficiently.
Having listed to the whole clip I think she doesn’t know. She comes across as poorly prepared and not on top of her brief
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
(Although the quote above reads like it is a response to a series of questions from the telegraph that ended up with “sure, yes we might get over 50% in a few years” rather than an actual policy)
Let’s face it. The Telegraph is just out to get the veins on it’s readership’s temples throbbing.
A bit of catnip for the permanently purple.
It’s disappointing. I used to enjoy it a great deal but now rarely read it even when I’ve got nothing else to do
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
(Although the quote above reads like it is a response to a series of questions from the telegraph that ended up with “sure, yes we might get over 50% in a few years” rather than an actual policy)
No, it’s up for a members vote so it is something they are actively considering,
Though quite why members should vote on the catering offer I don’t know.
Because it was raised as an resolution item by members of the trust and received sufficient support that it is resolution that needs to be voted on.
So purely political then, rather like the student unions in the ‘90s spending hours arguing about whether the union’s shop should sell KitKats.
Something likely to cost the NT money, and result in more food waste, by not taking into account what their customers actually want to buy.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
Yes, but:
The local authority has a *statutory duty* to provide an education to anyone under 18 in their area, for free.
They are *not* allowed - and I really mean not allowed - to means test it. The person who asked for that financial data may have committed an offence.
If the preferred schools are full, they should have offered places at another school instead. Then it is up to the parents to decide whether to take it, or either try and find the money somehow or go with home schooling.
Of course, the government could have avoided stories like this by introducing the policy for all fees from September 2025. But that would have been a sensible policy and VAT on private school fees is essentially red meat to appease those weirdos like BJO who haven't (unlike him) left the party yet.
You're making my original point about local authorities not being allowed to evade an absolute obligation to provide a school place. I misunderstood what the council did here however.
The letter is garbled and I suspect checking fee paying status was never policy as it would be so obviously illegal.
Maybe the person dealing with the case went to someone more experienced who told them, we often get private school parents applying for grammar school places but they never take allocated places at other schools unless they really can't afford the fees at their current place. That somehow got conflated with the usual advice to stay put unless you get your preference.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
But going back to that example in Coventry - that cyclist will have been able to see the car as she approached the junction. She didn't take evasive action because the car was stationary and she reasonably assumed that the car was going to wait for her to pass until pulling into the road.
Her choice to ride a cycle, which makes you more at risk from accidents and serious injury or even death than driving or travelling in a car. A motorbike even more so.
Now yes the driver was also at fault (my original point was just the offence in question deserved a community order not jail). However if you choose to ride a bike which is harder to see and makes you more vulnerable on the roads you need to take extra care at all times, especially at junctions, roundabouts and on busy roads and when overtaking for your own protection if nothing else
You are a dangerous driver blaming the cyclist. Would you come out with this "it's your fault for choosing to cycle" crap if the cyclist was a child?
I wouldn't be surprised. A kid near me was killed as he cycled to school (driver arrested), but the car brains were suggesting that the parents were at fault for letting him do so.
You can't drive a car until 17, you shouldn't be able to cycle on a main road until the same age either
That's a clear position (albeit one I find strange), but it's not thought through on its own terms.
A 50cc Moped, 350kg Light Quadricycle or Motor Trike can be ridden on the road at 16, speed limited to 28mph. That includes a 3 wheel minivan such as a Piaggio Ape.
The "on main roads" is a bigger question with all sorts of grey areas.
Comments
From the Buckinghamshire website;
Some grammar schools give higher priority to qualified children in receipt of Pupil Premium. Additionally, some grammar schools have a limited number of places available for unqualified children in receipt of Pupil Premium, if they achieve a certain score in the Secondary Transfer Test (slightly lower than the usual qualification score of 121)...
https://www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/schools-and-learning/schools-index/school-admissions/school-admissions-guides-policies-and-statistics/guide-to-moving-up-to-secondary-school/admission-rules/
So there is a legit "I'm just a poor boy, from a poor family" loophole.
Doesn't make the council letter right, of course.
Now yes the driver was also at fault (my original point was just the offence in question deserved a community order not jail). However if you choose to ride a bike which is harder to see and makes you more vulnerable on the roads you need to take extra care at all times, especially at junctions, roundabouts and on busy roads and when overtaking for your own protection if nothing else
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/
https://cookingbythebook.com/recipes/rotolo-ripieno-or-stuffed-pasta-roll-from-emilia-romagna/
(By the way, am I banned from posting photos? Last couple of days the insert photo button does nothing...)
The story that most experts agree on is that an Italian chef, Renato Gualandi, first made it in 1944 at a dinner in Riccione for the US army with guests including Harold Macmillan. “The Americans had fabulous bacon, very good cream, some cheese and powdered egg yolks,” Gualandi later recalled. Cesari dismisses myths that carbonara was the food of 18th-century Italian charcoal workers as “ahistorical”.
For Italians born after boom years, carbonara has an unalterable set of ingredients: pork jowl, Roman pecorino cheese, eggs and pepper. But early recipes are surprisingly varied. The oldest was printed in Chicago in 1952 and featured Italian bacon, not pork jowl. Italian recipes from around the same time include everything from gruyère (1954, in the magazine La Cucina Italiana) to “prosciutto, and thinly sliced sautéd mushrooms” (1958, Rome’s Tre Scalini restaurant). Pork jowl didn’t come to replace bacon until as recently as the 1990s.
Edit sorry got this wrong about queue jumping but the article was also wrong in saying education wouldn't be provided with out proof of not affording the fees.
The Black vote is still strongly Democrat as it has been since LBJ's civil rights laws.
The swing voters now are Hispanics and college educated, well paid, middle class whites and the latter used to be the strongest GOP group
I'm puzzled that we read the same things and came to such different conclusions.
See also all the remaindered "plant based" sandwiches in every Tesco.
At the moment how many people have had their asylum claims rejected and are still to be deported?'
Home Office Minister Dame Angela Eagle says 'these statistics are available if you want to look them up.'"
https://x.com/GMB/status/1831961440669823031
Judge orders disclosure of all the evidence relating to Trump's activities on January 6 later this month, as there has to be a hearing to evaluate how much of the evidence is not admissible due to the SCOTIS immunity ruling.
So it will be all over the media.
This is Judge Chutkan, who has taken the position that "I am here to hold a trial for an indicted defendant in my Court. The process of the Election is not my concern".
I've had another little nibble on Harris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbT4tNzEj_A
I have to talk to journalists in my job and the contrast between those at the Times/Sunday times/FT and the Telegraph is massive. The former check what quotes I’m comfortable with and ask open questions; the latter are friendly enough but very obviously have an “angle” and never check before quoting. The Grauniad is somewhere between the two.
(Bit of a bugger for councils who have retained the 11+; quite a lot of their grammar school places go to pupils from out-of-area.)
So they can't say "no place at all". But they can say "no grammar school places, unless you qualify via the Pupil Premium thing." Depends what was in the rest of the letter.
But school transfers outside the normal time (say people move house) are always a pain.
Information Commissioner rules in favour of Home Office, which refused to reveal cost of furnishing Hampshire accommodation"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/sensitive-costs-furnishing-asylum-seeker-flats-watchdog/
The one delayed is the sentencing hearing in New York for the Stormy Daniels hush money as a way to stop the public hearing about his incident with the porn star whilst he was having another long-term affair with a woman whilst his wife was not available because she was pregnant, so as to prevent it undermining his prospects in 2016. That is Judge Merchan.
Judge Chutkan is the formidable one in DC with the sprawling case dealing with election manipulation in 2020. She wrote the amazing Judgement including phrases such as "Presidents are not kings" and referring to the murder of St Thomas a Becket as an example. She was the one appealed to SCOTUS on Presidential Immunity, who gave a set of confused principles about which evidence was admissible, and she has decided there needs to be a preliminary hearing so it all needs to be in public.
The stuff coming out I think is all the stuff submitted to the Grand Jury, in response to a request from Jack Smith the Prosecutor. So it will all be public, with no commentary, and the media will be crawling all over it in the run up to the Election.
So ...fun. And Mr Trump is not Happy. He's probably Grumpy. The vid linked is quite informative.
I'm going with a friend next week, who used to run the visitor side of the South Foreland Lighthouse for the NT. We will both check in, as the property visited gets about £4 per member visiting.
I can't remember the last time I visited a NT property, which is strange because in the 1980s it was more or less mandatory every Bank Holiday Monday.
Departments set to reject chancellor’s demands as ‘just not possible’ and ask for more money instead"
https://www.ft.com
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/06/north-carolina-rfk-state-ballot
"The North Carolina court of appeals made a last-minute decision on Friday to remove Kennedy’s name from presidential ballots, creating a scramble to reprint ballots and begin sending them to voters.
In Michigan, a state appellate court also ruled on Friday that Kennedy’s name as the Natural Law party’s candidate must be stricken from ballots. The Michigan secretary of state’s office said it would appeal to the state supreme court."
National Trust catering is already about 40 per cent plant-based nationally, and the charity said it could increase to 50 per cent within two years if the resolution is passed, while keeping dairy, eggs and meat on the menu.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/06/national-trust-cafe-food-vegan-net-zero-hypocrisy-vote/ (£££)
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
Their scones are nowhere near as good now they don’t have butter as a shortening. The cakes still okay.
That’s not to say that efficiencies can’t be made. But to do so will involve cutting out the control freakery of the Tory years and giving Departments freedom to deliver. The Tories tried to deliver ambitious outcomes without changing the fundamentals. Labour needs to be bolder.
I wonder if they can keep it up in the second series ?
I cancelled my membership several years ago, and haven't looked back.
"This is my diplomatic way of putting it: they're misogynistic pigs."
Trends on this stuff - already pretty niche - are going down, not up.
Also they promised a discount on renewal but the renewal came through at full price. Apparently you had to claim it online.
Fuck them.
That said, if you asked me which show it was most similar to, I'd say Succession, and that managed two excellent seasons.
The cast is excellent all round.
Regarding the perfect casting, apparently it was originally going to be Hugh Grant, but he dropped out because of scheduling problems.
A happy accident, perhaps.
Owner of Ormiston Wire in London urges Keir Starmer not to forget small manufacturers in his dealings with EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/sixth-generation-uk-wire-maker-blames-brexit-shredding-business
...Make UK, the manufacturers’ trade body, said figures showed the number of products being exported to the EU had been reduced by 80%, with small- and medium-sized businesses worst hit.
“Our exports have literally halved. We were making efforts to actually get more exports in Europe because British manufacturing was going down the toilet, which it has done now,” said Ormiston.
With Keir Starmer vowing to reset relations with the EU, Ormiston implored the new prime minister to consider the smaller firms who do not have access to the Treasury or Labour party conference to make their voices heard.
He added: “Make UK are the big guys, the British Aerospaces, the big manufacturers and organisations like the CBI [Confederation of British Industry]. We are irrelevant to them. But if you multiply me by a million little companies doing these little things, it does add up to a significant amount of British exports.
“It’s consequences, isn’t it? When politicians have a great idea, they don’t live with the consequences so they don’t care. By the time it all kicks in they are dead or in the House of Lords.”..
“Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time”
(Although the quote above reads like it is a response to a series of questions from the telegraph that ended up with “sure, yes we might get over 50% in a few years” rather than an actual policy)
I enjoy a lot of vegan food, when it's proper food that simply doesn't happen to include any meat or dairy. But taking something and replacing its essential ingredient with an inferior alternative is a waste of time. I don't want an ersatz scone.
The local authority has a *statutory duty* to provide an education to anyone under 18 in their area, for free.
They are *not* allowed - and I really mean not allowed - to means test it. The person who asked for that financial data may have committed an offence.
If the preferred schools are full, they should have offered places at another school instead. Then it is up to the parents to decide whether to take it, or either try and find the money somehow or go with home schooling.
Of course, the government could have avoided stories like this by introducing the policy for all fees from September 2025. But that would have been a sensible policy and VAT on private school fees is essentially red meat to appease those weirdos like BJO who haven't (unlike him) left the party yet.
A bit of catnip for the permanently purple.
Though quite why members should vote on the catering offer I don’t know.
I'd rather eat pizza with pineapple on it.
Worse I don't think Southern Bucks has that many crap schools and a lot of people come in from the surround counties filling up any spare spaces available - so it's perfectly possible that the issue the person in Bucks has is that there are NO places to accommodate the new intake.
And on the fact that Councils no longer have any ability to override the decision of the headmaster of an academy trust school and I can see December / January creating some very bad headlines for this Government. In fact the main Christmas holiday story almost writes itself.
Very interesting BBC article comparing building and fire strategy between a Council Tower Block, Invicta House (1970s), in Thanet with the Landmark Pinnacle (post-Grenfell), a private block in Canary Wharf.
Big contrasts as would be expected, in quality but also in fire strategy..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2912gz5xgo
So leaving aside the merits of VAT on private school fees (there aren't really any merits to it, except political ones) introducing it in the way that has been done was utter stupidity.
Reeves is a chess champion. If she's this tactically short sighted I'm amazed she ever won a game.
We also come back to the key point - asking the parents for financial data to means test council provided schooling is unlawful. Whatever idiot sent that email, whatever the context, is an imbecile and needs the sack.
Having said that, he was rather useful during WW2.
Something likely to cost the NT money, and result in more food waste, by not taking into account what their customers actually want to buy.
The letter is garbled and I suspect checking fee paying status was never policy as it would be so obviously illegal.
Maybe the person dealing with the case went to someone more experienced who told them, we often get private school parents applying for grammar school places but they never take allocated places at other schools unless they really can't afford the fees at their current place. That somehow got conflated with the usual advice to stay put unless you get your preference.
NEW THREAD
A 50cc Moped, 350kg Light Quadricycle or Motor Trike can be ridden on the road at 16, speed limited to 28mph. That includes a 3 wheel minivan such as a Piaggio Ape.
The "on main roads" is a bigger question with all sorts of grey areas.