Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?
Can someone be harmed by nothing?
Only if it is a complete Snowflake's Charter...
Would the man on the Clapham Omnibus clutch his pearls and swoon? If not, then the commentariat should be safe.
Some of the pre-election players (YouGov, R+W) haven't popped their little noses out of their burrows since the election. Whether that's because they are still applying sticky tape to their models, or the papers (mostly) aren't paying for VI any more, you would have to ask them.
Incidentally, looking at that summary, some of the older players (Opinium, Deltapoll, Survation) seem to be less bad for Labour than the newbies. Which isn't to say that they're right...
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.
Yes, I think it's essentially a polemic against the Karen slur. I've not read it, only read the reviews.
The problem with polemics against the Karen slur, is that the Karen type exists and has been shown on video recording on multiple occasions.
The following is photographic evidence of a Karen in the wild
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.
Tried to think of a male equivalent term but couldn't. So there you go.
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.
Tried to think of a male equivalent term but couldn't. So there you go.
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.
Yes, I think it's essentially a polemic against the Karen slur. I've not read it, only read the reviews.
The problem with polemics against the Karen slur, is that the Karen type exists and has been shown on video recording on multiple occasions.
The following is photographic evidence of a Karen in the wild
Surely "Karen" is a grievous racist slur against the Karen people of Burma?
Some, at last of the 'confusion' is caused, I suspect by the 'difficult' language used. I'm aware of a group of senior citizens who are extremely concerned about this and and consequently trying to make the language used in legislation less, perhaps, opaque. Their leaders thoughts can be understood perhaps, by part of his website introduction, viz: "How can things be improved? You may have heard about “Citizen Scientists” who are being recruited to help scientists analyse the huge amounts of information being gathered by recent advances in the technology employed. So, can “citizen legal advisers” be employed from the ranks of the U3A to help draft and propose improvements to legislation? While some knowledge of legal matters would be required in the team, there is a great need for some people to review legislation and comment along the lines of “I don’t understand this – it needs to be rewritten in a way that lay people can understand”.
Have a look at u3acommunities.org; improving legislation.
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
There was a time when I was about 14 when I was bullied at school. That was in the 50's when the standard advice was 'fight back'. Not so easy when it's one against 10 or so, plus most of the rest of the form. So sometimes thought about suicide; jumping in front of one of the trains on the nearby railway and so on. That would get all the problems over with. Obviously I didn't and the problems did go away, but I was glad to go 300 miles from home for higher education. By the time I came back 'home' I was a married man with a family and teenage angst was something I was expecting to have to talk to my children about eventually. But if I'd been looking at what everyone else was posting on my phone ......
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Mum just called me a 50 year-old man-child! (don't ask!)
But I think this most unfair - I don't turn 50 for another 10 months!
I thought your mother only ever appears offscreen and unseen, with only her voice being heard. This allows for fanfic to "fill in the blanks" and many entries on DeviantArt. Mostly in pencil
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
Will stagger, nay astonish, some.
But the above statement by Trump is bullshit.
What, so you're saying he hasn't sacrificed clean water for the whole state of California in order to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt?
Some, at last of the 'confusion' is caused, I suspect by the 'difficult' language used. I'm aware of a group of senior citizens who are extremely concerned about this and and consequently trying to make the language used in legislation less, perhaps, opaque. Their leaders thoughts can be understood perhaps, by part of his website introduction, viz: "How can things be improved? You may have heard about “Citizen Scientists” who are being recruited to help scientists analyse the huge amounts of information being gathered by recent advances in the technology employed. So, can “citizen legal advisers” be employed from the ranks of the U3A to help draft and propose improvements to legislation? While some knowledge of legal matters would be required in the team, there is a great need for some people to review legislation and comment along the lines of “I don’t understand this – it needs to be rewritten in a way that lay people can understand”.
Have a look at u3acommunities.org; improving legislation.
I thought U3A was just Tinder for wrinklies?
No, nothing like it. Meeting place, either 'for real' or on line for 'wrinklies' (I'll give you that) who want to keep their minds active.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
Will stagger, nay astonish, some.
But the above statement by Trump is bullshit.
What, so you're saying he hasn't sacrificed clean water for the whole state of California in order to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt?
Obviously the burden of proof is now on the Governor, who must eat seven of said fish, raw, bones and all, to demonstrate his contempt for them.
His kind of wokery makes me so angry I could throw the phone down. He may as well go and live in Greenland.
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Mum just called me a 50 year-old man-child! (don't ask!)
But I think this most unfair - I don't turn 50 for another 10 months!
I thought your mother only ever appears offscreen and unseen, with only her voice being heard. This allows for fanfic to "fill in the blanks" and many entries on DeviantArt. Mostly in pencil
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.
Tried to think of a male equivalent term but couldn't. So there you go.
Cantankerous Old Barstewards?
Well I've certainly come across a few of them. One or two on here!
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
There was a time when I was about 14 when I was bullied at school. That was in the 50's when the standard advice was 'fight back'. Not so easy when it's one against 10 or so, plus most of the rest of the form. So sometimes thought about suicide; jumping in front of one of the trains on the nearby railway and so on. That would get all the problems over with. Obviously I didn't and the problems did go away, but I was glad to go 300 miles from home for higher education. By the time I came back 'home' I was a married man with a family and teenage angst was something I was expecting to have to talk to my children about eventually. But if I'd been looking at what everyone else was posting on my phone ......
Yes, that's the problem nowadays. The internet and social media don't forget. Thinking of something I am not particularly proud of from schooldays, I once gate-crashed a party I had not been invited to. Now I was the talk of the 6th form common room for a few days, but next week two other kids became an "item", that became the big topic, and I was forgotten about. Today a record would be kept.
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
Will stagger, nay astonish, some.
But the above statement by Trump is bullshit.
What, so you're saying he hasn't sacrificed clean water for the whole state of California in order to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt?
Yes.
Because he'd already murdered all of them. Can't kill people twice. That would be crazy!
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.
The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.
A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.
At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).
But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.
Tried to think of a male equivalent term but couldn't. So there you go.
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
Will stagger, nay astonish, some.
But the above statement by Trump is bullshit.
What, so you're saying he hasn't sacrificed clean water for the whole state of California in order to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt?
Obviously the burden of proof is now on the Governor, who must eat seven of said fish, raw, bones and all, to demonstrate his contempt for them.
His kind of wokery makes me so angry I could throw the phone down. He may as well go and live in Greenland.
Needn't bother, that's his chances for WH28 gone already. No way will America vote for a guy who values fish more than people, esp an essentially worthless one called a smelt.
Some of the pre-election players (YouGov, R+W) haven't popped their little noses out of their burrows since the election. Whether that's because they are still applying sticky tape to their models, or the papers (mostly) aren't paying for VI any more, you would have to ask them.
Incidentally, looking at that summary, some of the older players (Opinium, Deltapoll, Survation) seem to be less bad for Labour than the newbies. Which isn't to say that they're right...
Alternatively one since 20 December. That's nearly three weeks.
Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?
Can someone be harmed by nothing?
Only if it is a complete Snowflake's Charter...
Would the man on the Clapham Omnibus clutch his pearls and swoon? If not, then the commentariat should be safe.
As I've said, the way it's written it doesn't require any actual people to feel/be harmed the specific wording only requires for there to be perceived or potential harm in the words. No one needs to make a complaint for action to be taken by police and it's a certainty that police forces with arrest and conviction targets to meet will see this as an easy way to get guilty convictions to bolster their stats. They already do this with hate speech laws.
Spectator TV interviews former Truss economist J Jessop (not PB's one):-
“She has zero credibility” – is Rachel Reeves making bigger mistakes than Liz Truss?
The UK’s long-term government borrowing costs hit the highest level since 1998 this week. This creates huge problems for the chancellor, considering Rachel Reeves plans to borrow hundreds of billions of pounds to fund higher public investment and spending.
Have Labour created more economic problems than they’ve solved? Will Labour be hiking taxes again? And is Rachel Reeves making just as many mistakes as Liz Truss? Economics editor Kate Andrews is joined by independent economist Julian Jessop.
//CHAPTERS 00:00 - Introduction 00:31 - Bond market jitters and rising borrowing costs 02:08 - £12 billion debt interest crisis explained 04:17 - Mini-budget fallout vs. today's economic challenges 07:22 - Inflation, stagflation, and economic warning signs 10:34 - The problem of record debt and state expansion 12:43 - Stagflation lite: what it means for the UK 14:45 - Why UK economic growth has stagnated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVh2eaVVerA
Some, at last of the 'confusion' is caused, I suspect by the 'difficult' language used. I'm aware of a group of senior citizens who are extremely concerned about this and and consequently trying to make the language used in legislation less, perhaps, opaque. Their leaders thoughts can be understood perhaps, by part of his website introduction, viz: "How can things be improved? You may have heard about “Citizen Scientists” who are being recruited to help scientists analyse the huge amounts of information being gathered by recent advances in the technology employed. So, can “citizen legal advisers” be employed from the ranks of the U3A to help draft and propose improvements to legislation? While some knowledge of legal matters would be required in the team, there is a great need for some people to review legislation and comment along the lines of “I don’t understand this – it needs to be rewritten in a way that lay people can understand”.
Have a look at u3acommunities.org; improving legislation.
I thought U3A was just Tinder for wrinklies?
No, nothing like it. Meeting place, either 'for real' or on line for 'wrinklies' (I'll give you that) who want to keep their minds active.
My father (retired philosopher) wrote to the Home Office, regarding some finer points of their naturalisation legislation. It was in connection with my step-mother's citizenship.
17 pages, in which he demonstrated that the clauses in question were contradictory, illogical and useless.
A somewhat apologetic (and almost frightened) letter arrived, conceding all his points, granting the application with regard to my step-mother and offering him a part time job parsing legislation.
He asked me what I thought. I suggested that he take the role, at 4x the offered hourly rate. The reduction in personnel at the Home Office would noticeably reduce our tax bills - they would be running in fear out of the building.
Sadly, he decided not to take them up on the idea.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
Ok, well that is a recent change, albeit a welcome one.
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
There was a time when I was about 14 when I was bullied at school. That was in the 50's when the standard advice was 'fight back'. Not so easy when it's one against 10 or so, plus most of the rest of the form. So sometimes thought about suicide; jumping in front of one of the trains on the nearby railway and so on. That would get all the problems over with. Obviously I didn't and the problems did go away, but I was glad to go 300 miles from home for higher education. By the time I came back 'home' I was a married man with a family and teenage angst was something I was expecting to have to talk to my children about eventually. But if I'd been looking at what everyone else was posting on my phone ......
I was gave that a 'like', but it feels like it needs more than that.
I was never really bullied at school - looking back I find it hard to work out why as I should have been prime material, but I think I was probably unconsciously political in cultivating the right friendships and alliances.
But, back then (for you or even in my time) any bullying would have been mostly confined to school or perhaps the walk there and back. Once home, there would have been respite. With messaging and social media it's much more possible now for it to be effectively 24/7. Having online communities to help bullied children can be a great thing; having online communities that push suicide as a solution is not.
I can't help thinking, though, that this bill might not do much to help with that, while potentially being misused against other people who are not particularly harmful, but just plain rude or nasty.
There is a HoC Research Department that provides briefings and overviews for all MP's. There are alternative sources of information such as the Daily Mail, Think Tanks and of course, PB. Is the RD a waste and could be sold off to someone like Musk?
Here is the research on the Terminally Ill Adults Bill
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
Will stagger, nay astonish, some.
But the above statement by Trump is bullshit.
What, so you're saying he hasn't sacrificed clean water for the whole state of California in order to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt?
Obviously the burden of proof is now on the Governor, who must eat seven of said fish, raw, bones and all, to demonstrate his contempt for them.
His kind of wokery makes me so angry I could throw the phone down. He may as well go and live in Greenland.
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
Will stagger, nay astonish, some.
But the above statement by Trump is bullshit.
What, so you're saying he hasn't sacrificed clean water for the whole state of California in order to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt?
Obviously the burden of proof is now on the Governor, who must eat seven of said fish, raw, bones and all, to demonstrate his contempt for them.
His kind of wokery makes me so angry I could throw the phone down. He may as well go and live in Greenland.
Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!
Will stagger, nay astonish, some.
But the above statement by Trump is bullshit.
What, so you're saying he hasn't sacrificed clean water for the whole state of California in order to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt?
Obviously the burden of proof is now on the Governor, who must eat seven of said fish, raw, bones and all, to demonstrate his contempt for them.
His kind of wokery makes me so angry I could throw the phone down. He may as well go and live in Greenland.
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
And a part of this is the mainstream media/legacy media wanting to put the boot into the new media which is gradually supplanting it.
Which is exactly why most of the mainstream media have been talking about the dangers of new media for the past few days, rather than the actual issue at hand (which I won’t mention here).
It’s now existential for old media, as has been already demonstrated in the US, with CNN and MSNBC recording five figures in key demo ratings for their flagship nightly shows that cost them tens of millions to produce, accompanied by youngsters cutting the cable that represents their baseline revenue stream.
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
There was a time when I was about 14 when I was bullied at school. That was in the 50's when the standard advice was 'fight back'. Not so easy when it's one against 10 or so, plus most of the rest of the form. So sometimes thought about suicide; jumping in front of one of the trains on the nearby railway and so on. That would get all the problems over with. Obviously I didn't and the problems did go away, but I was glad to go 300 miles from home for higher education. By the time I came back 'home' I was a married man with a family and teenage angst was something I was expecting to have to talk to my children about eventually. But if I'd been looking at what everyone else was posting on my phone ......
I was gave that a 'like', but it feels like it needs more than that.
I was never really bullied at school - looking back I find it hard to work out why as I should have been prime material, but I think I was probably unconsciously political in cultivating the right friendships and alliances.
But, back then (for you or even in my time) any bullying would have been mostly confined to school or perhaps the walk there and back. Once home, there would have been respite. With messaging and social media it's much more possible now for it to be effectively 24/7. Having online communities to help bullied children can be a great thing; having online communities that push suicide as a solution is not.
I can't help thinking, though, that this bill might not do much to help with that, while potentially being misused against other people who are not particularly harmful, but just plain rude or nasty.
Thank you. It depends, in part, I suspect, on the bullying and the way in which it's conducted.
Some, at last of the 'confusion' is caused, I suspect by the 'difficult' language used. I'm aware of a group of senior citizens who are extremely concerned about this and and consequently trying to make the language used in legislation less, perhaps, opaque. Their leaders thoughts can be understood perhaps, by part of his website introduction, viz: "How can things be improved? You may have heard about “Citizen Scientists” who are being recruited to help scientists analyse the huge amounts of information being gathered by recent advances in the technology employed. So, can “citizen legal advisers” be employed from the ranks of the U3A to help draft and propose improvements to legislation? While some knowledge of legal matters would be required in the team, there is a great need for some people to review legislation and comment along the lines of “I don’t understand this – it needs to be rewritten in a way that lay people can understand”.
Have a look at u3acommunities.org; improving legislation.
I thought U3A was just Tinder for wrinklies?
No, nothing like it. Meeting place, either 'for real' or on line for 'wrinklies' (I'll give you that) who want to keep their minds active.
Well, in 3 years and 2 months time (who said I was I keeping count?), I will be eligible to join. Looking forward to it.
Some, at last of the 'confusion' is caused, I suspect by the 'difficult' language used. I'm aware of a group of senior citizens who are extremely concerned about this and and consequently trying to make the language used in legislation less, perhaps, opaque. Their leaders thoughts can be understood perhaps, by part of his website introduction, viz: "How can things be improved? You may have heard about “Citizen Scientists” who are being recruited to help scientists analyse the huge amounts of information being gathered by recent advances in the technology employed. So, can “citizen legal advisers” be employed from the ranks of the U3A to help draft and propose improvements to legislation? While some knowledge of legal matters would be required in the team, there is a great need for some people to review legislation and comment along the lines of “I don’t understand this – it needs to be rewritten in a way that lay people can understand”.
Have a look at u3acommunities.org; improving legislation.
I thought U3A was just Tinder for wrinklies?
No, nothing like it. Meeting place, either 'for real' or on line for 'wrinklies' (I'll give you that) who want to keep their minds active.
Well, in 3 years and 2 months time (who said I was I keeping count?), I will be eligible to join. Looking forward to it.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
Ok, well that is a recent change, albeit a welcome one.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
There is a HoC Research Department that provides briefings and overviews for all MP's. There are alternative sources of information such as the Daily Mail, Think Tanks and of course, PB. Is the RD a waste and could be sold off to someone like Musk?
Here is the research on the Terminally Ill Adults Bill
IANAL but I think it is a bad idea to outsource Parliament's brains to somebody else. Politics is for concepts which do not have consensus axioms. In such an environment defining "the truth" is difficult. Consequently Parliament should retain the capacity to do its own research
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
The ICC's own rules should lead them to expel Afghanistan.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
Of course this is a generality, and there are some sensible Labour MPs that also might defect. I guess the best way to work out where they will go is just to ask him.
Watched PMQs for first time in a while, thought the LOTO came across very well. Gather we can’t pass comment on what she was actually talking about. What a fecking country this is.
So let’s say instead she was much more confident and fluid in her verbal delivery than the early weeks. She dressed very well for the occasion and is photogenic. She also has the hang already of restarting her points after Speaker interruption, so that there’s a clean clip to edit for the socials. Much to prove but her presentation and political instincts look sounder by the week.
The PM on the hand looked like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders and the MP for Yardley looked like she swallowed a whole wasps nest. Not sure why that might be.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
Except that their women’s team has fled overseas, exiled in Australia and UAE, and not being allowed to compete as required by the ICC’s own rules.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
Except that their women’s team has fled overseas, exiled in Australia and UAE, and not being allowed to compete as required by the ICC’s own rules.
Well that's precisely why I wonder if they received a nudge.
Of course this is a generality, and there are some sensible Labour MPs that also might defect. I guess the best way to work out where they will go is just to ask him.
David Brindle @DavidJ_Brindle · 1h ‘I can’t think of any reason why [social care commission] should take three years, I simply can’t. The commission I was part of took a year from being commissioned to final reporting’ - Sir Andrew Dilnot on Casey social care inquiry at @CommonsHealth
Because Labour don't want to prioritise it. Things that Labour have prioritised are:
Giving Palantir the contract for NHS data Selling the Royal Mail to the Czechs Taking Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners Giving Ed Miliband 22bn to extract gas from air and heat caves with it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a left-wing government for a change? I mean yes they fuck up the economy, but at least you get some nice things, like less dead old people.
Increasing taxes on employers and farmers to fund huge bungs for GPs and train drivers and scrapping remaining hereditary peers is pretty leftwing
Landowners, not farmers, please.
Most of those hit are farmers
But not the same thing. And a lot of farmers aren't hit. You're giving the impression of manipulating words to slant the argument.
In any case - the taxes haven't begun. And any competent planning will sort much of the issue.
The average net worth across all farms was £2.2 million in 2022/23 and 49% of farms had a net worth of at least £1.5 million.
So large numbers of farms will be hit planning or not
B ut that is still not the same thing. Landowners, not farmers, is the key word.
No it isn't as it is agricultural property relief being removed over £1 million it is not specifically an extra tax on landowners otherwise it would hit all owner occupiers in the UK
Landowners whose land is used for farming, sure.
But it beginds with Landowners. Not Farmers. Farmers do not necessarily own their land, and that's what counts.
We're not brain dead on PB and it's an insult to all of us to have jejune propaganda on here.
No it doesn't, as landowners include someone who owns a 2 bed property and garden in Stoke.
This ending of agricultural property relief is primarily going to hit farmers
I said "Landowners whose land is used for farming". Not growing bloody chrysanthemums.
I can see @Carnyx that you need some educating on this simple matter rather than simply swallowing the propaganda from Starmer et al.
Here is an explanation that even people in the public sector might understand:
Imagine you are the Principal of a Higher Education College. It isn't very well paid, but you get by, and you love the work even though it is often challenging. The buildings and the grounds are worth a lot of money, but you don't intend to sell them even though some of the governors would like you to. The HE college has been around for 100 years, but all of a sudden a new government comes in and says that whether the property that is used for the college is sold or otherwise, there will be a tax every time there is a change of the Principal.
"But we don't have any spare cash" says the Principal "Sell some of the buildings" says the heartless minister. In fact sell 20% of them. You can afford it." "But then we will have to have 20% less students!" "Tough, just get on and sell. The college is rich enough in terms of assets"
Now the college now has 20% less students. 20% less income and subsequently closes.
This is the reality for a large number of family farms and family businesses. These businesses are asset rich but income poor. It is not difficult for a farm to have assets over 3M, anymore than it would be for an HE college.
As @malcolmg said, if a farmer sells their assets and realises this value, then they would and should pay CGT, but not simply for continuing to farm it.
Doesn't change the basic fact that HYUFD said farmers. Not landowners. As if all farmers were being hit. He could have said owner-farmers.
As for the other things you raise: they operate only once that distinction is made. Which HYUFD did not. Edit: Until then, we can't consider the points you make.
I own a farm field myself, renting it out, so I know very well how it works, having dealt with the IHT liability on it as the executor.
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
And a part of this is the mainstream media/legacy media wanting to put the boot into the new media which is gradually supplanting it.
Which is exactly why most of the mainstream media have been talking about the dangers of new media for the past few days, rather than the actual issue at hand (which I won’t mention here).
It’s now existential for old media, as has been already demonstrated in the US, with CNN and MSNBC recording five figures in key demo ratings for their flagship nightly shows that cost them tens of millions to produce, accompanied by youngsters cutting the cable that represents their baseline revenue stream.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
Except that their women’s team has fled overseas, exiled in Australia and UAE, and not being allowed to compete as required by the ICC’s own rules.
Well that's precisely why I wonder if they received a nudge.
I do wonder if there’s half a plan underfoot to allow a ‘rebel’ Afghan women’s team to register out of Melbourne or Dubai?
They’d better get on with it though, before the men’s tournament in February.
AIUI most of them are currently seeking asylum in Australia which means they can’t leave the country.
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
Spectator TV interviews former Truss economist J Jessop (not PB's one):-
“She has zero credibility” – is Rachel Reeves making bigger mistakes than Liz Truss?
The UK’s long-term government borrowing costs hit the highest level since 1998 this week. This creates huge problems for the chancellor, considering Rachel Reeves plans to borrow hundreds of billions of pounds to fund higher public investment and spending.
Have Labour created more economic problems than they’ve solved? Will Labour be hiking taxes again? And is Rachel Reeves making just as many mistakes as Liz Truss? Economics editor Kate Andrews is joined by independent economist Julian Jessop.
//CHAPTERS 00:00 - Introduction 00:31 - Bond market jitters and rising borrowing costs 02:08 - £12 billion debt interest crisis explained 04:17 - Mini-budget fallout vs. today's economic challenges 07:22 - Inflation, stagflation, and economic warning signs 10:34 - The problem of record debt and state expansion 12:43 - Stagflation lite: what it means for the UK 14:45 - Why UK economic growth has stagnated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVh2eaVVerA
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
And a part of this is the mainstream media/legacy media wanting to put the boot into the new media which is gradually supplanting it.
Which is exactly why most of the mainstream media have been talking about the dangers of new media for the past few days, rather than the actual issue at hand (which I won’t mention here).
It’s now existential for old media, as has been already demonstrated in the US, with CNN and MSNBC recording five figures in key demo ratings for their flagship nightly shows that cost them tens of millions to produce, accompanied by youngsters cutting the cable that represents their baseline revenue stream.
Talking of CNN remember CNN+. Sank without trace.
Sank without trace, within a month, at a cost of $300m.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
The ICC's own rules should lead them to expel Afghanistan.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
Yet they were happy to ban South Africa for over 20 years due to its domestic situation.
with January being as much of a shitshow as the previous 5 months, how long until we start getting Labour MP defections ?
To?
just about anyone to be frank.
The rumblings have already kicked off in the local councils.
LD, Con, SNP, PC, Reform , Independent,
The way Reeves is going the AfD could get their first MP
If this was a slight majority the govt would be collapsing by the end of the year the way gilts and public opinion are going. I’m not a wagerer but I think it’s likely Starmer stands down before 2025 is out.
He’s not politically savvy enough to sack his disastrous chancellor or to do the necessary policy and presentational pivots to stop his approval ratings sinking towards single figures. And that will be that.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
Except that their women’s team has fled overseas, exiled in Australia and UAE, and not being allowed to compete as required by the ICC’s own rules.
Well that's precisely why I wonder if they received a nudge.
I do wonder if there’s half a plan underfoot to allow a ‘rebel’ Afghan women’s team to register out of Melbourne or Dubai?
They’d better get on with it though, before the men’s tournament in February.
AIUI most of them are currently seeking asylum in Australia which means they can’t leave the country.
Yep. If there was some alternative Afghan cricket authority for example. And (lessons learnt) if that just was about cricket.
I’d put Ryanair close to the top of a list companies I’d avoid like the plague, but can absolutely support them suing a disruptive passenger for the £12,500 cost of the diversion.
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
And worse, been shown up by the Aussies. Unforgivable.
Have the Aussies said they won't play Afghanistan at the WC? I missed that. I know they cancelled the bilateral series (but the ECB haven't scheduled any either) and also that they have granted asylum to the women's cricket team.
I took it as implicit but they haven’t had to opine because they aren’t in the group. I think they have basically said they will not play them.
The Aussies are in the same group, and have said they’ll play the match.
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
I wonder if the ICC have had a nudge from the UN (or the like) to not cut ties. Cricket is about the only promising thing to happen to Afghanistan in a very long time. Either way the ICC need to decide and stop sitting on the fence, and they should explain their decision.
The ICC's own rules should lead them to expel Afghanistan.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
Is it just greed, a lack of understanding or interest?
I refer back to the Lions tour of South Africa in I think 1972. John Taylor refused to go and was branded a Communist whose career would be over (which in essence it was after his snub) by the ex military man who was Chairman of the Lions. Lesser minds than Taylor, like Gareth Edwards excused themselves by claiming they just wanted to play rugby against the best in the World. At the time Rugby Union was (believe it if you will) an amateur game, so it wasn't money driven.
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
Which great things have lawyers been responsible for?
I can’t say it would be much fun being a Labour MP right now. A lot of the new intake must have dreamed of these days for such a long time and it’s hard to think that it’s living up to their expectations. You’ve got lots of competition for government jobs and Keir seems to be quite keen on promoting his mates with connections anyway. In the meantime instead of doing all that exciting government stuff you dreamt of you’re having to justify taking money off grannies and whatever the heck Rachel Reeves is doing to your constituents.
I do think talk of defection is a little premature because we’re only 6 months in and I can’t imagine people getting scared of losing yet.
I can’t say it would be much fun being a Labour MP right now. A lot of the new intake must have dreamed of these days for such a long time and it’s hard to think that it’s living up to their expectations. You’ve got lots of competition for government jobs and Keir seems to be quite keen on promoting his mates with connections anyway. In the meantime instead of doing all that exciting government stuff you dreamt of you’re having to justify taking money off grannies and whatever the heck Rachel Reeves is doing to your constituents.
I do think talk of defection is a little premature because we’re only 6 months in and I can’t imagine people getting scared of losing yet.
If defections come on present polls they will be redwall Labour MPs to Reform but not yet as you say
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
Which great things have lawyers been responsible for?
Lawyers don't do so much as think and make laws and apply them but that knowledge is important in a legislative body
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
I can’t say it would be much fun being a Labour MP right now. A lot of the new intake must have dreamed of these days for such a long time and it’s hard to think that it’s living up to their expectations. You’ve got lots of competition for government jobs and Keir seems to be quite keen on promoting his mates with connections anyway. In the meantime instead of doing all that exciting government stuff you dreamt of you’re having to justify taking money off grannies and whatever the heck Rachel Reeves is doing to your constituents.
I do think talk of defection is a little premature because we’re only 6 months in and I can’t imagine people getting scared of losing yet.
There must be a serious temptation to go Green - back to the joys of opposition.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
I’d put Ryanair close to the top of a list companies I’d avoid like the plague, but can absolutely support them suing a disruptive passenger for the £12,500 cost of the diversion.
I wonder how many of the passengers on board might also join the civil suit, for cancelled meetings and events etc..?
Perhaps this should remind everyone not to drink too much in the terminal if you become an idiot after too many drinks?
I’ve heard it said that, in the U.K., the airlines were told off for discussing a joint no-fly list. Get banned on one, get banned on all. The government of the time was worried about backlash….
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
You're forgetting, though. that that's not Musk, and it's Musk who has the personal connection with Canada. There was no sign of interest in this Idea from Trump before.
Musk is not a troll, but more of an overgrown teenager-megalomaniac.
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
Which great things have lawyers been responsible for?
Lawyers don't do so much as think and make laws and apply them but that knowledge is important in a legislative body
I wasn't suggesting that lawyers didn't have a place in the world. A small scattering of well paid lawyers rather than a cockroach like infestation of meddlers seems the best balance to me though.
I’d put Ryanair close to the top of a list companies I’d avoid like the plague, but can absolutely support them suing a disruptive passenger for the £12,500 cost of the diversion.
I wonder how many of the passengers on board might also join the civil suit, for cancelled meetings and events etc..?
Perhaps this should remind everyone not to drink too much in the terminal if you become an idiot after too many drinks?
I’ve heard it said that, in the U.K., the airlines were told off for discussing a joint no-fly list. Get banned on one, get banned on all. The government of the time was worried about backlash….
If you’re so pissed and unstable that you cause the Captain to need to divert the plane, not a decision he (or she) takes lightly, you should be absolutely on a no-fly list for at least a decade.
Same as the late-night pubs in most English towns have operated for years. Banned from one, banned from all.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
While tut-tutting ?
Well the man is a total narcissist. Give him attention and he'll keep coming back, ignore him and he 'll annoy someone else.
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
Which great things have lawyers been responsible for?
Lawyers don't do so much as think and make laws and apply them but that knowledge is important in a legislative body
I wasn't suggesting that lawyers didn't have a place in the world. A small scattering of well paid lawyers rather than a cockroach like infestation of meddlers seems the best balance to me though.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
While tut-tutting ?
That should stop the silly chap. It'll all be over by Christmas.
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
Which great things have lawyers been responsible for?
Lawyers don't do so much as think and make laws and apply them but that knowledge is important in a legislative body
I wasn't suggesting that lawyers didn't have a place in the world. A small scattering of well paid lawyers rather than a cockroach like infestation of meddlers seems the best balance to me though.
I think the argument then is there are now too many well paid lawyers in the world applying the law but not enough lawyers in Parliament making the law
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
I’d put Ryanair close to the top of a list companies I’d avoid like the plague, but can absolutely support them suing a disruptive passenger for the £12,500 cost of the diversion.
I wonder how many of the passengers on board might also join the civil suit, for cancelled meetings and events etc..?
Perhaps this should remind everyone not to drink too much in the terminal if you become an idiot after too many drinks?
I’ve heard it said that, in the U.K., the airlines were told off for discussing a joint no-fly list. Get banned on one, get banned on all. The government of the time was worried about backlash….
Maybe we need some more lawyers elected as MPs and not just ex SPADs, MPs researchers and councillors, journalists, trade union officials and middle managers as is increasingly the case. The PM is a lawyer as is Lammy but few others in his Cabinet are and Lammy only practiced for 3 years, there aren't many lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet either apart from Jenrick and a few others (Kemi does have a part time law degree from Birkbeck but that is it and she worked as an analyst and consultant).
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
I like this. I don't necessarily think we should be singling out lawyers - although as you say I would hope they would have a better handle on unintended consequences of bad legislation. But basically anyone who has had a proper career - whether it is a lawyer, a military man, a doctor, a plumber or a shop keeper. People who have lived and worked in the real world rather than solely in the realm of politics.
Comments
Would the man on the Clapham Omnibus clutch his pearls and swoon? If not, then the commentariat should be safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Some of the pre-election players (YouGov, R+W) haven't popped their little noses out of their burrows since the election. Whether that's because they are still applying sticky tape to their models, or the papers (mostly) aren't paying for VI any more, you would have to ask them.
Incidentally, looking at that summary, some of the older players (Opinium, Deltapoll, Survation) seem to be less bad for Labour than the newbies. Which isn't to say that they're right...
The following is photographic evidence of a Karen in the wild
Although whether she would be OSA compliant is perhaps open for discussion.
But, not a discussion here, obviously...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_people
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/keir-starmer-calls-on-icc-to-deliver-own-rules-amid-afghanistan-boycott-row-1468113
Essentially, the ECB have said they won't boycott matches against Afghanistan in international tournaments.
They have shown, as usual, the backbone of a jellyfish.
Not so easy when it's one against 10 or so, plus most of the rest of the form.
So sometimes thought about suicide; jumping in front of one of the trains on the nearby railway and so on. That would get all the problems over with.
Obviously I didn't and the problems did go away, but I was glad to go 300 miles from home for higher education. By the time I came back 'home' I was a married man with a family and teenage angst was something I was expecting to have to talk to my children about eventually.
But if I'd been looking at what everyone else was posting on my phone ......
His kind of wokery makes me so angry I could throw the phone down. He may as well go and live in Greenland.
Thinking of something I am not particularly proud of from schooldays, I once gate-crashed a party I had not been invited to.
Now I was the talk of the 6th form common room for a few days, but next week two other kids became an "item", that became the big topic, and I was forgotten about.
Today a record would be kept.
Because he'd already murdered all of them. Can't kill people twice. That would be crazy!
“She has zero credibility” – is Rachel Reeves making bigger mistakes than Liz Truss?
The UK’s long-term government borrowing costs hit the highest level since 1998 this week. This creates huge problems for the chancellor, considering Rachel Reeves plans to borrow hundreds of billions of pounds to fund higher public investment and spending.
Have Labour created more economic problems than they’ve solved? Will Labour be hiking taxes again? And is Rachel Reeves making just as many mistakes as Liz Truss? Economics editor Kate Andrews is joined by independent economist Julian Jessop.
//CHAPTERS
00:00 - Introduction
00:31 - Bond market jitters and rising borrowing costs
02:08 - £12 billion debt interest crisis explained
04:17 - Mini-budget fallout vs. today's economic challenges
07:22 - Inflation, stagflation, and economic warning signs
10:34 - The problem of record debt and state expansion
12:43 - Stagflation lite: what it means for the UK
14:45 - Why UK economic growth has stagnated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVh2eaVVerA
17 pages, in which he demonstrated that the clauses in question were contradictory, illogical and useless.
A somewhat apologetic (and almost frightened) letter arrived, conceding all his points, granting the application with regard to my step-mother and offering him a part time job parsing legislation.
He asked me what I thought. I suggested that he take the role, at 4x the offered hourly rate. The reduction in personnel at the Home Office would noticeably reduce our tax bills - they would be running in fear out of the building.
Sadly, he decided not to take them up on the idea.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2024-1411166/afghanistan-vs-australia-48th-match-super-eights-group-1-1415748/live-cricket-score
I was never really bullied at school - looking back I find it hard to work out why as I should have been prime material, but I think I was probably unconsciously political in cultivating the right friendships and alliances.
But, back then (for you or even in my time) any bullying would have been mostly confined to school or perhaps the walk there and back. Once home, there would have been respite. With messaging and social media it's much more possible now for it to be effectively 24/7. Having online communities to help bullied children can be a great thing; having online communities that push suicide as a solution is not.
I can't help thinking, though, that this bill might not do much to help with that, while potentially being misused against other people who are not particularly harmful, but just plain rude or nasty.
You say this like it is a new phenomenon?
*His methodology for reducing the venom thrown at him, in his time's version of social media, was striking. Pistols for two, breakfast for one.
There is a HoC Research Department that provides briefings and overviews for all MP's. There are alternative sources of information such as the Daily Mail, Think Tanks and of course, PB. Is the RD a waste and could be sold off to someone like Musk?
Here is the research on the Terminally Ill Adults Bill
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10123/
It’s now existential for old media, as has been already demonstrated in the US, with CNN and MSNBC recording five figures in key demo ratings for their flagship nightly shows that cost them tens of millions to produce, accompanied by youngsters cutting the cable that represents their baseline revenue stream.
It depends, in part, I suspect, on the bullying and the way in which it's conducted.
https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2024/12/5/cricket-australia-defends-afghanistan-boycott-after-hypocrisy-accusation
At this point it either requires the ICC to step in, or for England, Australia and South Africa (the three teams in the groups with Afghanistan) to all boycott the tournament as a whole in protest.
FFS - it's just a game. What the fuck is wrong with Western sportsmen that they can't even give up one bloody game to show some revulsion at what is happening to Afghan women?
I wonder where they'd go though?
My guesses;
60% Lab -> Corbycrap
20% Lab -> Greens
10% Lab -> Reform
Of course this is a generality, and there are some sensible Labour MPs that also might defect. I guess the best way to work out where they will go is just to ask him.
So let’s say instead she was much more confident and fluid in her verbal delivery than the early weeks. She dressed very well for the occasion and is photogenic. She also has the hang already of restarting her points after Speaker interruption, so that there’s a clean clip to edit for the socials. Much to prove but her presentation and political instincts look sounder by the week.
The PM on the hand looked like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders and the MP for Yardley looked like she swallowed a whole wasps nest. Not sure why that might be.
The rumblings have already kicked off in the local councils.
LD, Con, SNP, PC, Reform , Independent,
The way Reeves is going the AfD could get their first MP
As for the other things you raise: they operate only once that distinction is made. Which HYUFD did not. Edit: Until then, we can't consider the points you make.
I own a farm field myself, renting it out, so I know very well how it works, having dealt with the IHT liability on it as the executor.
They’d better get on with it though, before the men’s tournament in February.
AIUI most of them are currently seeking asylum in Australia which means they can’t leave the country.
Davey, Flynn and Farage aren't lawyers either. A few more lawyers, especially barristers, would enable all consequences of legislation to be scrutinised whether intended or not
Either way Mandy Rice-Davies applies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN+
Whoops!
Bizarre.
The Afghans have just been touring Zimbabwe.
He’s not politically savvy enough to sack his disastrous chancellor or to do the necessary policy and presentational pivots to stop his approval ratings sinking towards single figures. And that will be that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/08/ryanair-sues-passenger-behaviour-grounded-flight/
I wonder how many of the passengers on board might also join the civil suit, for cancelled meetings and events etc..?
Perhaps this should remind everyone not to drink too much in the terminal if you become an idiot after too many drinks?
I refer back to the Lions tour of South Africa in I think 1972. John Taylor refused to go and was branded a Communist whose career would be over (which in essence it was after his snub) by the ex military man who was Chairman of the Lions. Lesser minds than Taylor, like Gareth Edwards excused themselves by claiming they just wanted to play rugby against the best in the World. At the time Rugby Union was (believe it if you will) an amateur game, so it wasn't money driven.
I do think talk of defection is a little premature because we’re only 6 months in and I can’t imagine people getting scared of losing yet.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
It’s going to be a very long next four years for so many people.
Idea from Trump before.
Musk is not a troll, but more of an overgrown teenager-megalomaniac.
Same as the late-night pubs in most English towns have operated for years. Banned from one, banned from all.
Then buy popcorn
Which had no effect at all, except to knock them out of the tournament early.
Dip your bread!