About a third of the items on my weekly shop have gone up by well over 10% compared to a fortnight ago.
Lollies £1.70 to £2.25
Bacon £1.65 to £2
Rice pudding 25p to 29p
None of these were on offer a fortnight ago so just price hikes
The bars of chocolate you could get for £1 at the local shop not so long ago initially went up to £1.25, then £1.35, and on Monday I noticed that some of them now have a £1.50 price on them.
3% my arse.
Chocolate prices quadrupled on the commodities markets last year due to terrible harvests in West Africa. It’s unsurprising that chocolate on the shelf is seeing significant rises as a result.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
Tbf it was how the US was dealing with it, until the guy won again and pardoned himself
A legal system that can’t bring charges, in 4 years, for a crime committed on live TV, must take some of the blame.
Assuming that history books are still written in the future — rather than recorded history simply being whatever the all-powerful AI says it is today — the Biden administration will rightfully receive a lot of blame for their failure to hold Trump to account.
Tbf it was how the US was dealing with it, until the guy won again and pardoned himself
A legal system that can’t bring charges, in 4 years, for a crime committed on live TV, must take some of the blame.
Assuming that history books are still written in the future — rather than recorded history simply being whatever the all-powerful AI says it is today — the Biden administration will rightfully receive a lot of blame for their failure to hold Trump to account.
Inflation and the price of chocolate: People's sense of life being more expensive is structural - built in from preceding events.
The three bedroom suburban London semi I was brought up in has increased in value well over 100 fold since about 1960. What you buy one for now would then, in cash terms, have bought the whole road.
A few pence or pounds up or down in the price of chocolate makes no difference to how that seems.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
It seems to me that the Poles are the ones out in front on this. A massive re-armament, in depth. Further, basing this on weapons that don’t come with strings in their usage.
That South Korean kit looks to be light years ahead of the North Korean stuff Russia has acquired.
Plus if the unthinkable happened and Russia fully acquired Ukraine, the Poles would be very wise to ensure the whole of the Ukrainian drone infrastructrue - stocks, manufacturing, drone builders and especially battle-hardened operators - were given refugee status and allowed across the border.
Inflation and the price of chocolate: People's sense of life being more expensive is structural - built in from preceding events.
The three bedroom suburban London semi I was brought up in has increased in value well over 100 fold since about 1960. What you buy one for now would then, in cash terms, have bought the whole road.
A few pence or pounds up or down in the price of chocolate makes no difference to how that seems.
I don't buy chocolate, don't really have a sweet tooth. Are Mars bars and the like expensive now ?
I'm unsure calling Trump a fascist at the moment is useful. The problem is that, unlike terms such as 'dictator'. fascism is poorly defined, with many differing definitions that also cover other categories such as Communism. I'd strongly argue that Putin is a fascist, but others point at definitions where he is not. We end up arguing about definitions.
And we should not let people think Trump is a-okay just because he is not a fascist.
Trump may turn into a fascist; but it is also possible that he turns into something that is not fascist, but just as bad. A new category, all to himself and his acolytes. If so, that needs calling out just as much as if he was a fascist.
A handy list of 14 to cut out and keep, appearing on PB several times before, helpfully listing a number of power elements more visible in North Korea than Norway. Whether or not they are fascist, they are not great to live under and are happening:
(Others can be added like, as here, Blurring or abolishing the independence of the legal process and judiciary),
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
"This week, 2,500 UK troops from the Army's high readiness force, the First Division, have been taking part in a large Nato exercise in Romania"...
"Brigadier Andy Watson, who is commanding the British contribution to the Nato exercise, says his brigade "is absolutely ready" should they receive orders to deploy to Ukraine."
"In terms of numbers of troops that might be needed, Brigadier Watson said 'clearly what the force package would look like would be dependent on what the prime minister and the Ministry of Defence would like'.
But he said 'it's absolutely not' something the UK could do on its own. 'I think the prime minister has been very clear that the UK would contribute to efforts, but absolutely not doing it on our own,' says Brigadier Watson."
So it's not happening then. The last sentence quoted was presumably phrased to sugarcoat the meaning of the preceding sentence.
AUKUS is a good deal for the US and doesn't commit them to do shit for Australia. They recently got a $500m shakedown payment out of Australia. Trump likes that sort of thing.
ANZUS does have some very vague mutual security commitments but we can all estimate the current worth of that agreement.
We haven't been able to defend Australia since at least the 1930s.
And I'm not sure even then, given that was predicated on the keystone of Singapore that seemed to be about 10th on the list for men, material and ships.
880 billion dollars of cuts to Medicaid and 230 billion dollars of cuts to food stamps .
So that they can keep the tax cuts which overwhelmingly help the highest earners . But the price of eggs ……
This is likely to lead to a government shutdown unless enough GOP balk at those proposals. The Dems busy trying to stop these cuts but will likely get little thanks from those who voted for Trump and really deserve to be fxcked.
If that's the content I can't see Lady G's budget passing, if it is as you say the Democrats won't vote for it and Rand Paul (And likely Rick Scott) are going to provide MAGA opposition from the other side.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
Have to agree. The only thing he could have better clarified is that selction as a candidate interfered with his qualifying. But no great biggie. He was smart enough to get his GDL, his LPC and to be accepted as a trainee by a leading law Manchester firm.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
'He also worked as a solicitor in the Manchester office of law firm Addleshaw Goddard. '
Inflation and the price of chocolate: People's sense of life being more expensive is structural - built in from preceding events.
The three bedroom suburban London semi I was brought up in has increased in value well over 100 fold since about 1960. What you buy one for now would then, in cash terms, have bought the whole road.
A few pence or pounds up or down in the price of chocolate makes no difference to how that seems.
More people are impacted by the price of chocolate than the price of London semis.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
You're a socialist whose commitment to your principles is only skin-deep?
Tbf it was how the US was dealing with it, until the guy won again and pardoned himself
A legal system that can’t bring charges, in 4 years, for a crime committed on live TV, must take some of the blame.
Assuming that history books are still written in the future — rather than recorded history simply being whatever the all-powerful AI says it is today — the Biden administration will rightfully receive a lot of blame for their failure to hold Trump to account.
It was the Republican dominated Congress that let Trump off the hook for his attempted coup, not Biden.
Inflation and the price of chocolate: People's sense of life being more expensive is structural - built in from preceding events.
The three bedroom suburban London semi I was brought up in has increased in value well over 100 fold since about 1960. What you buy one for now would then, in cash terms, have bought the whole road.
A few pence or pounds up or down in the price of chocolate makes no difference to how that seems.
More people are impacted by the price of chocolate than the price of London semis.
About a third of the items on my weekly shop have gone up by well over 10% compared to a fortnight ago.
Lollies £1.70 to £2.25
Bacon £1.65 to £2
Rice pudding 25p to 29p
None of these were on offer a fortnight ago so just price hikes
The bars of chocolate you could get for £1 at the local shop not so long ago initially went up to £1.25, then £1.35, and on Monday I noticed that some of them now have a £1.50 price on them.
3% my arse.
Chocolate prices quadrupled on the commodities markets last year due to terrible harvests in West Africa. It’s unsurprising that chocolate on the shelf is seeing significant rises as a result.
Olive Oil has skyrocketed in price too, due to harvests. We like the
It said cheese and eggs have increased over the year. Cannot say I have noticed on these or bread.
I have noticed the cartons of fruit juice I buy, to turn into alcohol, have increased again.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
I should hope it isn't normal terminology. The choice of the word "achieve" in "went on to achieve my (diploma)" is awful.
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
You have to disclose the accounts to the U.K. tax authorities. The main advantage is that, depending on when interest is paid and remitted back to the U.K. you may be paying tax at a lower rate than you are now. Also bear in mind that compensation rules if the entity goes bust are different.
But get proper tax advice because getting it wrong can be expensive and is not worth the worry.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
'He also worked as a solicitor in the Manchester office of law firm Addleshaw Goddard. '
I'm unsure calling Trump a fascist at the moment is useful. The problem is that, unlike terms such as 'dictator'. fascism is poorly defined, with many differing definitions that also cover other categories such as Communism. I'd strongly argue that Putin is a fascist, but others point at definitions where he is not. We end up arguing about definitions.
And we should not let people think Trump is a-okay just because he is not a fascist.
Trump may turn into a fascist; but it is also possible that he turns into something that is not fascist, but just as bad. A new category, all to himself and his acolytes. If so, that needs calling out just as much as if he was a fascist.
A handy list of 14 to cut out and keep, appearing on PB several times before, helpfully listing a number of power elements more visible in North Korea than Norway. Whether or not they are fascist, they are not great to live under and are happening:
(Others can be added like, as here, Blurring or abolishing the independence of the legal process and judiciary),
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
Trump has asked "Do you think I'm missing any? So, you know, I can work on them..."
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
You get a higher class of insult on here.
It's basically "You see that slug, that's you, that is" in a more articulate form.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
You're a socialist whose commitment to your principles is only skin-deep?
I'm unsure calling Trump a fascist at the moment is useful. The problem is that, unlike terms such as 'dictator'. fascism is poorly defined, with many differing definitions that also cover other categories such as Communism. I'd strongly argue that Putin is a fascist, but others point at definitions where he is not. We end up arguing about definitions.
And we should not let people think Trump is a-okay just because he is not a fascist.
Trump may turn into a fascist; but it is also possible that he turns into something that is not fascist, but just as bad. A new category, all to himself and his acolytes. If so, that needs calling out just as much as if he was a fascist.
A handy list of 14 to cut out and keep, appearing on PB several times before, helpfully listing a number of power elements more visible in North Korea than Norway. Whether or not they are fascist, they are not great to live under and are happening:
(Others can be added like, as here, Blurring or abolishing the independence of the legal process and judiciary),
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
That's one set of definitions, but some people have other definitions, which can be quite different (Wiki goes into this in depth....)
A couple of years back I heard a podcast discussion about whether Putin was a fascist. The expert said he was not, because fascists change the laws to enable themselves into power. IMV he was utterly incorrect (and sadly the interviewer did not challenge him). Firstly, Putin has changed the laws, e.g. over term limits. Secondly, what happens if the laws don't need to be changed much for a fascist to have power? What happens if one fascist changes the laws, then another fascist takes over? Or the state's laws are so lax in the first place that they allow fascism?
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
'He also worked as a solicitor in the Manchester office of law firm Addleshaw Goddard. '
TBH, I’m surprised we don’t see a greater use of the Wayback Machine in politics. It has a nice programmatic interface to discover historic pages and it’s relatively easy to grab and build up an index of of what people have historically claimed that we can compare against today.
If there were an opposition in this country, it would publish a Real Inflation index based on what people really pay out in supermarkets and elsewhere. It would take into account offers and their absence, the fluctuating availability of similar goods with lower prices (e.g. own brand rather than non-own brand), and shrinkflation. It would say fuck the government's statistics - they're lies - and here are the latest tricks by the dirty bastards at Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury, Aldi, wherever.
Of course no "expert" would want to be caught thinking for himself like this. It would be more than his job was worth. He'd be dissing the state and the "professionals". That's a no-no. He'd be rocking the boat, sawing through the branch he was sitting on, and doubtless other clichés could also be reached for.
The RI index would be attacked by "experts", and the response from the truth side would be "Those bumsniffer experts would say exactly what they're saying, wouldn't they? We're not going to get sucked in and play their bullshit game with them."
But no. There's no opposition. The masses watch politicians play the same old game with each other. As in other types of advertising, methods used for decades usually work well. There are simple rules for influencing behaviour. Nobody on the screen says in proper language what everyone in the working class knows: the retail price index is cock.
Highly analogous points could be made regarding health, education, etc.
Everyone has their own inflation rate. In principle people could use their personal expenditure weights on the ONS's price relatives. There should be a service on the interweb that does that - it would be provided most easily by the ONS. Atm they produce a "pensioner index", for the "average" 2-person pensioner household. But that's it. Poor service
"This week, 2,500 UK troops from the Army's high readiness force, the First Division, have been taking part in a large Nato exercise in Romania"...
"Brigadier Andy Watson, who is commanding the British contribution to the Nato exercise, says his brigade "is absolutely ready" should they receive orders to deploy to Ukraine."
"In terms of numbers of troops that might be needed, Brigadier Watson said 'clearly what the force package would look like would be dependent on what the prime minister and the Ministry of Defence would like'.
But he said 'it's absolutely not' something the UK could do on its own. 'I think the prime minister has been very clear that the UK would contribute to efforts, but absolutely not doing it on our own,' says Brigadier Watson."
So it's not happening then. The last sentence quoted was presumably phrased to sugarcoat the meaning of the preceding sentence.
There isn't even a ceasefire to enforce yet anyway and the Russians have made clear they won't accept NATO troops being part of any peacekeeping force in Ukraine.
So all they can train for is to defend NATO nations
Found this unbelievable stat from 2017: 4 out of 10 (41%) adults aged 40 to 60 in England walk less than 10 minutes continuously each month at a brisk pace.
Of course COVID was going to kills hundreds of thousands of people. The NHS is absolutely ****** going forward.
Tbf it was how the US was dealing with it, until the guy won again and pardoned himself
A legal system that can’t bring charges, in 4 years, for a crime committed on live TV, must take some of the blame.
Assuming that history books are still written in the future — rather than recorded history simply being whatever the all-powerful AI says it is today — the Biden administration will rightfully receive a lot of blame for their failure to hold Trump to account.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
Jonathan Reynolds seems to be one of the more competent (at least in presentation) Cabinet Ministers in an atrocious field. I don't think this will unseat him. It may rule him out of a big promotion though.
Just a shout out to @Battlebus when I asked yesterday for any info on the towpaths on the Canal du Midi. Thanks for the link. It was very useful and has caused me to vary my plans.
On Trump: Trump is turning the USA into an autocracy. One man, one vote: he is the man & he has the vote.
The only entities that have any power left to oppose him are the individual states I think. Trump will wield the power of the federal government to try and assert total control over them too I imagine.
About a third of the items on my weekly shop have gone up by well over 10% compared to a fortnight ago.
Lollies £1.70 to £2.25
Bacon £1.65 to £2
Rice pudding 25p to 29p
None of these were on offer a fortnight ago so just price hikes
The bars of chocolate you could get for £1 at the local shop not so long ago initially went up to £1.25, then £1.35, and on Monday I noticed that some of them now have a £1.50 price on them.
3% my arse.
Chocolate prices quadrupled on the commodities markets last year due to terrible harvests in West Africa. It’s unsurprising that chocolate on the shelf is seeing significant rises as a result.
Olive Oil has skyrocketed in price too, due to harvests. We like the
It said cheese and eggs have increased over the year. Cannot say I have noticed on these or bread.
I have noticed the cartons of fruit juice I buy, to turn into alcohol, have increased again.
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. People tend to be ignorant, but not stupid, in my experience.
Average iq is 100. Anyone with an iq under that is dumb as a daffodil. Thats half of humans right there
Anyone with an iq under 115 is not exactly bright
So yeah the majority of humans are fucking idiots. Hence the failure of democracy
UK average IQ is 100, global average IQ is closer to 90.
However representative, as opposed to direct, democracy is still better than dictatorship or absolute monarchy and means fewer revolutions
I'm unsure calling Trump a fascist at the moment is useful. The problem is that, unlike terms such as 'dictator'. fascism is poorly defined, with many differing definitions that also cover other categories such as Communism. I'd strongly argue that Putin is a fascist, but others point at definitions where he is not. We end up arguing about definitions.
And we should not let people think Trump is a-okay just because he is not a fascist.
Trump may turn into a fascist; but it is also possible that he turns into something that is not fascist, but just as bad. A new category, all to himself and his acolytes. If so, that needs calling out just as much as if he was a fascist.
A handy list of 14 to cut out and keep, appearing on PB several times before, helpfully listing a number of power elements more visible in North Korea than Norway. Whether or not they are fascist, they are not great to live under and are happening:
(Others can be added like, as here, Blurring or abolishing the independence of the legal process and judiciary),
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
That's one set of definitions, but some people have other definitions, which can be quite different (Wiki goes into this in depth....)
A couple of years back I heard a podcast discussion about whether Putin was a fascist. The expert said he was not, because fascists change the laws to enable themselves into power. IMV he was utterly incorrect (and sadly the interviewer did not challenge him). Firstly, Putin has changed the laws, e.g. over term limits. Secondly, what happens if the laws don't need to be changed much for a fascist to have power? What happens if one fascist changes the laws, then another fascist takes over? Or the state's laws are so lax in the first place that they allow fascism?
Good points. But there is certainly such a thing as powerful governments that are dangerous for some good people inside the state, and for some of their traditional friends, like UK or Ukraine.
FWIW the two bulwarks to watch in USA - I have no doubt at all that Trump and Trumpism is a bad outfit under whatever emerging title - is the 'rule of law' and the fanatical devotion the USA has had for free speech and a diverse media.
About a third of the items on my weekly shop have gone up by well over 10% compared to a fortnight ago.
Lollies £1.70 to £2.25
Bacon £1.65 to £2
Rice pudding 25p to 29p
None of these were on offer a fortnight ago so just price hikes
The bars of chocolate you could get for £1 at the local shop not so long ago initially went up to £1.25, then £1.35, and on Monday I noticed that some of them now have a £1.50 price on them.
3% my arse.
Chocolate prices quadrupled on the commodities markets last year due to terrible harvests in West Africa. It’s unsurprising that chocolate on the shelf is seeing significant rises as a result.
See also, olive oil. Which I can't afford in the quantities I used a couple of years ago.
It's hardly enforced privation, but what used to be a food staple isn't any more.
"Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited. Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it — three years. You should have never been there. You should have never started it. You should have made a deal.
We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law in Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine — I mean I hate to say it, but he’s down at 4% approval rating — and the country’s been blown to smithereens,”
I'm unsure calling Trump a fascist at the moment is useful. The problem is that, unlike terms such as 'dictator'. fascism is poorly defined, with many differing definitions that also cover other categories such as Communism. I'd strongly argue that Putin is a fascist, but others point at definitions where he is not. We end up arguing about definitions.
And we should not let people think Trump is a-okay just because he is not a fascist.
Trump may turn into a fascist; but it is also possible that he turns into something that is not fascist, but just as bad. A new category, all to himself and his acolytes. If so, that needs calling out just as much as if he was a fascist.
His shtick resembles Boulangerism. Strongman combined with a veneer of democratic populism.
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
You get a higher class of insult on here.
Leon is particularly lyrical with his insults. It's often the highlight of my day, nay my week, when he turns his poetic ire on little old me.
It's rare that he indulges me, I admit, but I find that faux admiring posts like this often trigger him so I shall be breathlessly (and no doubt futilely) hitting the refresh button all morning in the hope of a withering barb.
Found this unbelievable stat from 2017: 4 out of 10 (41%) adults aged 40 to 60 in England walk less than 10 minutes continuously each month at a brisk pace.
Of course COVID was going to kills hundreds of thousands of people. The NHS is absolutely ****** going forward.
Encouraging more physical activity was the job of Public Health England (in England). PHE produced the very successful Couch to 5K podcast and app as an intervention. However, the Johnson government abolished PHE near the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Promotion of public health like this was moved within the Department of Health, to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, who have less power to do anything. (For example, they wouldn't be allowed to make Couch to 5K.)
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. People tend to be ignorant, but not stupid, in my experience.
Average iq is 100. Anyone with an iq under that is dumb as a daffodil. Thats half of humans right there
Anyone with an iq under 115 is not exactly bright
So yeah the majority of humans are fucking idiots. Hence the failure of democracy
UK average IQ is 100, global average IQ is closer to 90.
However representative, as opposed to direct, democracy is still better than dictatorship or absolute monarchy and means fewer revolutions
Well said @hyufd. Winston Churchill's famous quote comes to mind. One or two here seem to want a dictatorship. The electorate often make stupid decisions (depending upon who you support) and we are all the better for their right to do so.
I'm unsure calling Trump a fascist at the moment is useful. The problem is that, unlike terms such as 'dictator'. fascism is poorly defined, with many differing definitions that also cover other categories such as Communism. I'd strongly argue that Putin is a fascist, but others point at definitions where he is not. We end up arguing about definitions.
And we should not let people think Trump is a-okay just because he is not a fascist.
Trump may turn into a fascist; but it is also possible that he turns into something that is not fascist, but just as bad. A new category, all to himself and his acolytes. If so, that needs calling out just as much as if he was a fascist.
A handy list of 14 to cut out and keep, appearing on PB several times before, helpfully listing a number of power elements more visible in North Korea than Norway. Whether or not they are fascist, they are not great to live under and are happening:
(Others can be added like, as here, Blurring or abolishing the independence of the legal process and judiciary),
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
AUKUS is a good deal for the US and doesn't commit them to do shit for Australia. They recently got a $500m shakedown payment out of Australia. Trump likes that sort of thing.
ANZUS does have some very vague mutual security commitments but we can all estimate the current worth of that agreement.
We haven't been able to defend Australia since at least the 1930s.
And I'm not sure even then, given that was predicated on the keystone of Singapore that seemed to be about 10th on the list for men, material and ships.
China though is at most only interested in invading Taiwan, not Australia and hasn't even done that yet
On Trump: Trump is turning the USA into an autocracy. One man, one vote: he is the man & he has the vote.
The only entities that have any power left to oppose him are the individual states I think. Trump will wield the power of the federal government to try and assert total control over them too I imagine.
The Supreme Court is likely to have a lot of cases to deal with in relation to Trumps power grab and they’re now the last line of defence .
Alito and Thomas will support Trump regardless of what he does but the other conservative judges could still find a spine . If the SCOTUS don’t step in then effectively the US constitution has been totally shredded .
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
You have to disclose the accounts to the U.K. tax authorities. The main advantage is that, depending on when interest is paid and remitted back to the U.K. you may be paying tax at a lower rate than you are now. Also bear in mind that compensation rules if the entity goes bust are different.
But get proper tax advice because getting it wrong can be expensive and is not worth the worry.
While Trump's minions are talking to Putin's henchmen the Ukranians should target their drones on infrastructure nearer to the Kremlin to focus minds
The Ukrainians may well have calculated that big hits on Moscow or St. Peterburg might provoke a tactical nuke in response - which Trump might give them cover to use. "Well, Ukraine started it..."
Better to trash their economy instead. "Whoops, there goes another rubber factory plant..."
Whilst quite a lot of drone strike on refineries and tank farms might not destroy the whole plant, they are not getting repaired because their owners don't have the money to fix them, or can't afford interest at 21%. So the whole plant is actually being taken off line. The 3rd Ukrainian Book-keeper Division and the 2nd Forensic Accountants are sifting through their accounts to work out which broke refinery to target next.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
Jonathan Reynolds seems to be one of the more competent (at least in presentation) Cabinet Ministers in an atrocious field. I don't think this will unseat him. It may rule him out of a big promotion though.
Jonathan Reynolds is a prime example of why the Labour Government will fail. My son at uni knows more about trade and business than he does. He lacks ideas, knowledge and any empathy with the SME business owners who he is meant to support.
Was listening to Fraser Nelson today on Youtube. His expose on the benefits system is damming and he explains why it is already clear it wont get better soon. We are on a tanker heading for the rocks and the crew are unable to turn the ship around. There is a real possibility that we will see a mini earthquake at May and an even bigger one in May 2026.
Isn’t this about different time windows? Wages were rising faster than inflation in Sep-Nov 2024, if I’ve understood the figures. However, I suspect when people answer the polling question, they think about what has happened over the last couple of years or more.
While this is true, I also suspect that if the time frames were reversed, people would also focus on the price increase rather than the long term wage growth. People know that if they say things are okay, governments might be less scared!
There hasn't been long term wage growth, at least not in real terms. Not since 2008 anyway.
I think that graph explains a lot of the discontent around the country over the last years.
What about 1980-2000? That looks a suspicious cut off point.
On Trump: Trump is turning the USA into an autocracy. One man, one vote: he is the man & he has the vote.
The only entities that have any power left to oppose him are the individual states I think. Trump will wield the power of the federal government to try and assert total control over them too I imagine.
An elephant in the room is surely Trump's age - it's not likely that he'll seek a third term purely because of that. We should be equally concerned about the longer term, in particular the real inclinations of the chameleon-like VP.
I'm unsure calling Trump a fascist at the moment is useful. The problem is that, unlike terms such as 'dictator'. fascism is poorly defined, with many differing definitions that also cover other categories such as Communism. I'd strongly argue that Putin is a fascist, but others point at definitions where he is not. We end up arguing about definitions.
And we should not let people think Trump is a-okay just because he is not a fascist.
Trump may turn into a fascist; but it is also possible that he turns into something that is not fascist, but just as bad. A new category, all to himself and his acolytes. If so, that needs calling out just as much as if he was a fascist.
A handy list of 14 to cut out and keep, appearing on PB several times before, helpfully listing a number of power elements more visible in North Korea than Norway. Whether or not they are fascist, they are not great to live under and are happening:
(Others can be added like, as here, Blurring or abolishing the independence of the legal process and judiciary),
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
Except Norway had an established Lutheran church until recently while North Korea is officially atheist.
Most industries in North Korea are nationalised too while in Norway corporations are private or shareholder owned
This is were the 'anti-woke' agenda has been heading for some time: not just against woke, but against women, and against anyone who dares to be different.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
are YOU missing something? what have you done with Comrade BJO?
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
You're a socialist whose commitment to your principles is only skin-deep?
A Socialist with a disabled wife whose annual care bill is over £300k per annum. She has a forecast life expectancy of another 12 to 15 year (10 less than before she became a paraplegic).
In order for her to make the most of those years and have sufficient funds. We are exploring options with regards to her negligence settlement.
If there were an opposition in this country, it would publish a Real Inflation index based on what people really pay out in supermarkets and elsewhere. It would take into account offers and their absence, the fluctuating availability of similar goods with lower prices (e.g. own brand rather than non-own brand), and shrinkflation. It would say fuck the government's statistics - they're lies - and here are the latest tricks by the dirty bastards at Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury, Aldi, wherever.
Of course no "expert" would want to be caught thinking for himself like this. It would be more than his job was worth. He'd be dissing the state and the "professionals". That's a no-no. He'd be rocking the boat, sawing through the branch he was sitting on, and doubtless other clichés could also be reached for.
The RI index would be attacked by "experts", and the response from the truth side would be "Those bumsniffer experts would say exactly what they're saying, wouldn't they? We're not going to get sucked in and play their bullshit game with them."
But no. There's no opposition. The masses watch politicians play the same old game with each other. As in other types of advertising, methods used for decades usually work well. There are simple rules for influencing behaviour. Nobody on the screen says in proper language what everyone in the working class knows: the retail price index is cock.
Highly analogous points could be made regarding health, education, etc.
Would it include the observable fact (prices in bright lights) that petrol is cheaper now than in 2012? In cash terms, never mind real terms.
So I wonder how Starmer will play his US visit. There’s a decent chance that Trump will try to humiliate / string arm him. How do you assert yourself, make your case, brush off insults without taking too much shit or breaking bridges.
The lawyer training might offer some protection. But good grief this is a tough gig.
Strong, resolute, forceful; including in the presser. Trump won’t respect conciliatory. And one hopes the Prince of Darkness has been working his magic.
Mandelson might turn out to have been an inspired appointment. I suspect he can play Trump nearly as well as Putin can.
You think another lying fcukwit joining in is the answer.
At this stage, maybe (I did say 'might'). We live in strange times, malc. To paraphrase: at least he's our lying fcukwit.
Found this unbelievable stat from 2017: 4 out of 10 (41%) adults aged 40 to 60 in England walk less than 10 minutes continuously each month at a brisk pace.
Of course COVID was going to kills hundreds of thousands of people. The NHS is absolutely ****** going forward.
That is an utterly shocking statistic, isn't it. We have to make people take more responsibility for their own health or we will be bankrupted as a country.
Simon Hart was the Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire from 2010 to 2024. Following a stint as secretary of state for Wales, he was appointed chief whip by Rishi Sunak in October 2022. His diary covers the ensuing 21 months until the general election.
November 24 2022
The phone rings at 2.45am from a 2019’er, clearly pissed but just about coherent: “Hi, chief. Hope I haven’t woken you.” (It’s 2.45am, FFS.)
Me: “What’s up?”
Him: “I’m stuck in a brothel in Bayswater and I’ve run out of money.”
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “I met a woman as I left the Carlton Club who offered me a drink, but I now think she is a KGB agent. She wants £500 and has left me in a room with 12 naked women and a CCTV.”
Me: “Give me a few moments and I will call you back.”
Bloody hell, this is a mess. I ring Spad [special adviser] Emma. She offers to leave her house and go personally to Bayswater on an extraction mission.
I suggest not (she sounded rather disappointed).
Instead, we devise a plan to send a taxi, extract our man, return him to the safety of his own hotel. I go back to sleep.
4.10am. Phone rings again.
Me: “Are you back safely?”
Him: “Yes, but you will never guess what happened next.” (The truest thing he said all evening.)
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “Well, I slipped out of the room and saw the taxi Emma ordered across the road, so I legged it over and jumped in. However, it turned out it was a different taxi being driven by an Afghan agent called Ahmed.”
Me: “So…”
Him: “Well, he demanded £3,000 for a blow job.”
Me: “And?”
Him: “I legged it back to the hotel and locked the door.”
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. People tend to be ignorant, but not stupid, in my experience.
Average iq is 100. Anyone with an iq under that is dumb as a daffodil. Thats half of humans right there
Anyone with an iq under 115 is not exactly bright
So yeah the majority of humans are fucking idiots. Hence the failure of democracy
UK average IQ is 100, global average IQ is closer to 90.
However representative, as opposed to direct, democracy is still better than dictatorship or absolute monarchy and means fewer revolutions
Well said @hyufd. Winston Churchill's famous quote comes to mind. One or two here seem to want a dictatorship. The electorate often make stupid decisions (depending upon who you support) and we are all the better for their right to do so.
Which is why the important bit about democracy isn't so much the ability to elevate as the ability to remove. Good thing that there are no doubts about Trump's attachment to that principle.
(So some people put the end of Spain's democratic transition as late as 1996- that was the first time that a defeated but still functional government handed over to a different one.)
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
You get a higher class of insult on here.
Leon is particularly lyrical with his insults. It's often the highlight of my day, nay my week, when he turns his poetic ire on little old me.
It's rare that he indulges me, I admit, but I find that faux admiring posts like this often trigger him so I shall be breathlessly (and no doubt futilely) hitting the refresh button all morning in the hope of a withering barb.
It might even rhyme.
You don't need Leon for insults. I had a demonstration of an AI 'roasting'. It was very funny as it knew all about the subject ... and weird in sort of way.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
Jonathan Reynolds seems to be one of the more competent (at least in presentation) Cabinet Ministers in an atrocious field. I don't think this will unseat him. It may rule him out of a big promotion though.
Jonathan Reynolds is a prime example of why the Labour Government will fail. My son at uni knows more about trade and business than he does. He lacks ideas, knowledge and any empathy with the SME business owners who he is meant to support.
Was listening to Fraser Nelson today on Youtube. His expose on the benefits system is damming and he explains why it is already clear it wont get better soon. We are on a tanker heading for the rocks and the crew are unable to turn the ship around. There is a real possibility that we will see a mini earthquake at May and an even bigger one in May 2026.
It is not just him, and I agree with Luckyguy, in a poor field he seems relatively competent.
The rest of his team have no background in business or trade. Just SPAD's/NGO's/Charities.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
Take 25% of the NBV of your allowable and fully written off assets & don't forget you get a million quid of annual investment allowance.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
You're a socialist whose commitment to your principles is only skin-deep?
A Socialist with a disabled wife whose annual care bill is over £300k per annum. She has a forecast life expectancy of another 12 to 15 year (10 less than before she became a paraplegic).
In order for her to make the most of those years and have sufficient funds. We are exploring options with regards to her negligence settlement.
Wouldn't expect you to care about that mind.
It
Sorry to hear about your wife's situation (and yours), Mr. Owls.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
are YOU missing something? what have you done with Comrade BJO?
By offshor ehe means buying roubles
Pre Trump that would have been a good idea as he was always likely to win. Missed that boat now.
Found this unbelievable stat from 2017: 4 out of 10 (41%) adults aged 40 to 60 in England walk less than 10 minutes continuously each month at a brisk pace.
Of course COVID was going to kills hundreds of thousands of people. The NHS is absolutely ****** going forward.
That is an utterly shocking statistic, isn't it. We have to make people take more responsibility for their own health or we will be bankrupted as a country.
Presumably these people are relatively healthy. After all, if they had to visit a ward or an outpatient service in our local hospital the 10 minute walk would be a minimum. Might even be that from their parking space.
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. People tend to be ignorant, but not stupid, in my experience.
Average iq is 100. Anyone with an iq under that is dumb as a daffodil. Thats half of humans right there
Anyone with an iq under 115 is not exactly bright
So yeah the majority of humans are fucking idiots. Hence the failure of democracy
UK average IQ is 100, global average IQ is closer to 90.
However representative, as opposed to direct, democracy is still better than dictatorship or absolute monarchy and means fewer revolutions
IQ is a touchy subject. It is difficult to define or measure. Tests can clearly be biased. However, should we choose to wade in to the topic, we can note that IQ is designed to have a typical score of 100. But IQ appears to be increasing over time: e.g.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261117 describes longitudinal data from Danish conscription. The causes of that are not entirely clear, but seem to include better education (which IQ isn't meant to be affected by, but is) and better childhood nutrition. That means that the UK average is probably higher than 100 (unless you choose to re-standardise your test).
IQ typically shows a slightly asymmetric distribution, with a heavier tail on the lower end (more with very low IQs than very high IQs), which means the arithmetic mean and the median will not coincide. Differences in mean IQ may just come down to differences in the very low IQ bulge, which typically relate to obstetric and health problems, rather than differences to most of the distribution.
Found this unbelievable stat from 2017: 4 out of 10 (41%) adults aged 40 to 60 in England walk less than 10 minutes continuously each month at a brisk pace.
Of course COVID was going to kills hundreds of thousands of people. The NHS is absolutely ****** going forward.
Encouraging more physical activity was the job of Public Health England (in England). PHE produced the very successful Couch to 5K podcast and app as an intervention. However, the Johnson government abolished PHE near the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Promotion of public health like this was moved within the Department of Health, to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, who have less power to do anything. (For example, they wouldn't be allowed to make Couch to 5K.)
PHE was abolished is loosely correct -large parts of it morphed into UKHSA. (I know as my wife worked for PHE, and is now doing the same job in the same building in UKHSA).
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
You get a higher class of insult on here.
Leon is particularly lyrical with his insults. It's often the highlight of my day, nay my week, when he turns his poetic ire on little old me.
It's rare that he indulges me, I admit, but I find that faux admiring posts like this often trigger him so I shall be breathlessly (and no doubt futilely) hitting the refresh button all morning in the hope of a withering barb.
It might even rhyme.
Tbh right now I’m more shocked - indeed, horrified - by this sequence of depraved stories in the Spectator
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
Something else on that web page that is not about solicitorgate but shines a light on another perennial debate is this bit: I had hoped to go to law school, but my plans changed considerably after the birth of my son Jack in January 2003. ... Becoming a father at a young age had a significant effect on me.
23 did not used to be a young age to have children. It might be the secular increase in this age (and not tax or benefits) is responsible for reshaping the age pyramid and turning the retirement system into a ponzi scheme depending on faster and faster immigration.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
Does your advisor get commission on the transfer?
Yes but also gets that on a UK product although admittedly most of our current savings are commission free.
"Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited. Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it — three years. You should have never been there. You should have never started it. You should have made a deal.
We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law in Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine — I mean I hate to say it, but he’s down at 4% approval rating — and the country’s been blown to smithereens,”
This is were the 'anti-woke' agenda has been heading for some time: not just against woke, but against women, and against anyone who dares to be different.
What actually happened is that the aircraft was descending at 1100-1200 FPM. This can be seen in the various videos of the accident. The aircraft did not flare to reduce the rate, before the landing.
So the aircraft “landed” at double the sink for a hard landing.
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
You get a higher class of insult on here.
Leon is particularly lyrical with his insults. It's often the highlight of my day, nay my week, when he turns his poetic ire on little old me.
It's rare that he indulges me, I admit, but I find that faux admiring posts like this often trigger him so I shall be breathlessly (and no doubt futilely) hitting the refresh button all morning in the hope of a withering barb.
It might even rhyme.
Tbh right now I’m more shocked - indeed, horrified - by this sequence of depraved stories in the Spectator
Simon Hart was the Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire from 2010 to 2024. Following a stint as secretary of state for Wales, he was appointed chief whip by Rishi Sunak in October 2022. His diary covers the ensuing 21 months until the general election.
November 24 2022
The phone rings at 2.45am from a 2019’er, clearly pissed but just about coherent: “Hi, chief. Hope I haven’t woken you.” (It’s 2.45am, FFS.)
Me: “What’s up?”
Him: “I’m stuck in a brothel in Bayswater and I’ve run out of money.”
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “I met a woman as I left the Carlton Club who offered me a drink, but I now think she is a KGB agent. She wants £500 and has left me in a room with 12 naked women and a CCTV.”
Me: “Give me a few moments and I will call you back.”
Bloody hell, this is a mess. I ring Spad [special adviser] Emma. She offers to leave her house and go personally to Bayswater on an extraction mission.
I suggest not (she sounded rather disappointed).
Instead, we devise a plan to send a taxi, extract our man, return him to the safety of his own hotel. I go back to sleep.
4.10am. Phone rings again.
Me: “Are you back safely?”
Him: “Yes, but you will never guess what happened next.” (The truest thing he said all evening.)
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “Well, I slipped out of the room and saw the taxi Emma ordered across the road, so I legged it over and jumped in. However, it turned out it was a different taxi being driven by an Afghan agent called Ahmed.”
Me: “So…”
Him: “Well, he demanded £3,000 for a blow job.”
Me: “And?”
Him: “I legged it back to the hotel and locked the door.”
This is were the 'anti-woke' agenda has been heading for some time: not just against woke, but against women, and against anyone who dares to be different.
What actually happened is that the aircraft was descending at 1100-1200 FPM. This can be seen in the various videos of the accident. The aircraft did not flare to reduce the rate, before the landing.
So the aircraft “landed” at double the sink for a hard landing.
Why that happened is not known, as yet.
I was going to make a joke about parking but I am wimping out.
Simon Hart was the Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire from 2010 to 2024. Following a stint as secretary of state for Wales, he was appointed chief whip by Rishi Sunak in October 2022. His diary covers the ensuing 21 months until the general election.
November 24 2022
The phone rings at 2.45am from a 2019’er, clearly pissed but just about coherent: “Hi, chief. Hope I haven’t woken you.” (It’s 2.45am, FFS.)
Me: “What’s up?”
Him: “I’m stuck in a brothel in Bayswater and I’ve run out of money.”
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “I met a woman as I left the Carlton Club who offered me a drink, but I now think she is a KGB agent. She wants £500 and has left me in a room with 12 naked women and a CCTV.”
Me: “Give me a few moments and I will call you back.”
Bloody hell, this is a mess. I ring Spad [special adviser] Emma. She offers to leave her house and go personally to Bayswater on an extraction mission.
I suggest not (she sounded rather disappointed).
Instead, we devise a plan to send a taxi, extract our man, return him to the safety of his own hotel. I go back to sleep.
4.10am. Phone rings again.
Me: “Are you back safely?”
Him: “Yes, but you will never guess what happened next.” (The truest thing he said all evening.)
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “Well, I slipped out of the room and saw the taxi Emma ordered across the road, so I legged it over and jumped in. However, it turned out it was a different taxi being driven by an Afghan agent called Ahmed.”
Me: “So…”
Him: “Well, he demanded £3,000 for a blow job.”
Me: “And?”
Him: “I legged it back to the hotel and locked the door.”
If there were an opposition in this country, it would publish a Real Inflation index based on what people really pay out in supermarkets and elsewhere. It would take into account offers and their absence, the fluctuating availability of similar goods with lower prices (e.g. own brand rather than non-own brand), and shrinkflation. It would say fuck the government's statistics - they're lies - and here are the latest tricks by the dirty bastards at Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury, Aldi, wherever.
Of course no "expert" would want to be caught thinking for himself like this. It would be more than his job was worth. He'd be dissing the state and the "professionals". That's a no-no. He'd be rocking the boat, sawing through the branch he was sitting on, and doubtless other clichés could also be reached for.
The RI index would be attacked by "experts", and the response from the truth side would be "Those bumsniffer experts would say exactly what they're saying, wouldn't they? We're not going to get sucked in and play their bullshit game with them."
But no. There's no opposition. The masses watch politicians play the same old game with each other. As in other types of advertising, methods used for decades usually work well. There are simple rules for influencing behaviour. Nobody on the screen says in proper language what everyone in the working class knows: the retail price index is cock.
Highly analogous points could be made regarding health, education, etc.
Everyone has their own inflation rate. In principle people could use their personal expenditure weights on the ONS's price relatives. There should be a service on the interweb that does that - it would be provided most easily by the ONS. Atm they produce a "pensioner index", for the "average" 2-person pensioner household. But that's it. Poor service
Thanks to loyalty cards, the supermarkets could provide this service, but I do not suppose Tesco wants to tell its customers how much more expensive Tesco has become.
Whether this data, suitably anonymised, can be fed back to the ONS is another question. Perhaps it already is.
Found this unbelievable stat from 2017: 4 out of 10 (41%) adults aged 40 to 60 in England walk less than 10 minutes continuously each month at a brisk pace.
Of course COVID was going to kills hundreds of thousands of people. The NHS is absolutely ****** going forward.
Encouraging more physical activity was the job of Public Health England (in England). PHE produced the very successful Couch to 5K podcast and app as an intervention. However, the Johnson government abolished PHE near the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Promotion of public health like this was moved within the Department of Health, to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, who have less power to do anything. (For example, they wouldn't be allowed to make Couch to 5K.)
PHE was abolished is loosely correct -large parts of it morphed into UKHSA. (I know as my wife worked for PHE, and is now doing the same job in the same building in UKHSA).
Broadly, PHE was split. Health protection (infectious diseases) went to UKHSA. Health promotion went to OHID. The health promotion bit is relevant to Eabhal's point.
Yes, the health protection functions continued with less disruption, although even then I find working with UKHSA (I had an honorary contract with PHE and do know with UKHSA) that many things that worked in PHE had to be re-invented after the organisational change.
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
You get a higher class of insult on here.
Leon is particularly lyrical with his insults. It's often the highlight of my day, nay my week, when he turns his poetic ire on little old me.
It's rare that he indulges me, I admit, but I find that faux admiring posts like this often trigger him so I shall be breathlessly (and no doubt futilely) hitting the refresh button all morning in the hope of a withering barb.
It might even rhyme.
Tbh right now I’m more shocked - indeed, horrified - by this sequence of depraved stories in the Spectator
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. People tend to be ignorant, but not stupid, in my experience.
Average iq is 100. Anyone with an iq under that is dumb as a daffodil. Thats half of humans right there
Anyone with an iq under 115 is not exactly bright
So yeah the majority of humans are fucking idiots. Hence the failure of democracy
UK average IQ is 100, global average IQ is closer to 90.
However representative, as opposed to direct, democracy is still better than dictatorship or absolute monarchy and means fewer revolutions
IQ is a touchy subject. It is difficult to define or measure. Tests can clearly be biased. However, should we choose to wade in to the topic, we can note that IQ is designed to have a typical score of 100. But IQ appears to be increasing over time: e.g.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261117 describes longitudinal data from Danish conscription. The causes of that are not entirely clear, but seem to include better education (which IQ isn't meant to be affected by, but is) and better childhood nutrition. That means that the UK average is probably higher than 100 (unless you choose to re-standardise your test).
IQ typically shows a slightly asymmetric distribution, with a heavier tail on the lower end (more with very low IQs than very high IQs), which means the arithmetic mean and the median will not coincide. Differences in mean IQ may just come down to differences in the very low IQ bulge, which typically relate to obstetric and health problems, rather than differences to most of the distribution.
If they are measuring IQ from Danish conscripts, maybe it's just all the thick ones got conscripted - and shot - first?
Something to the effect that lawyers don’t like ambiguity in the law?
Is this a generational thing? It seems to me that there are a number of lawyers who delight in using the law as a playground to create new rights and (effectively) new law.
I ask, because I am concerned by any drift to legislating courts. I think that a large chunk of the problems in the US is down to the Supreme Court becoming the third and most powerful chamber of the legislature.
Tbf it was how the US was dealing with it, until the guy won again and pardoned himself
A legal system that can’t bring charges, in 4 years, for a crime committed on live TV, must take some of the blame.
Assuming that history books are still written in the future — rather than recorded history simply being whatever the all-powerful AI says it is today — the Biden administration will rightfully receive a lot of blame for their failure to hold Trump to account.
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. People tend to be ignorant, but not stupid, in my experience.
Average iq is 100. Anyone with an iq under that is dumb as a daffodil. Thats half of humans right there
Anyone with an iq under 115 is not exactly bright
So yeah the majority of humans are fucking idiots. Hence the failure of democracy
UK average IQ is 100, global average IQ is closer to 90.
However representative, as opposed to direct, democracy is still better than dictatorship or absolute monarchy and means fewer revolutions
IQ is a touchy subject. It is difficult to define or measure. Tests can clearly be biased. However, should we choose to wade in to the topic, we can note that IQ is designed to have a typical score of 100. But IQ appears to be increasing over time: e.g.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261117 describes longitudinal data from Danish conscription. The causes of that are not entirely clear, but seem to include better education (which IQ isn't meant to be affected by, but is) and better childhood nutrition. That means that the UK average is probably higher than 100 (unless you choose to re-standardise your test).
IQ typically shows a slightly asymmetric distribution, with a heavier tail on the lower end (more with very low IQs than very high IQs), which means the arithmetic mean and the median will not coincide. Differences in mean IQ may just come down to differences in the very low IQ bulge, which typically relate to obstetric and health problems, rather than differences to most of the distribution.
Your usual dimwitted misinformed nonsense
After a long time of rising IQs - the so-called “Flynn Effect” - IQs are now declining, across the west
Simon Hart was the Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire from 2010 to 2024. Following a stint as secretary of state for Wales, he was appointed chief whip by Rishi Sunak in October 2022. His diary covers the ensuing 21 months until the general election.
November 24 2022
The phone rings at 2.45am from a 2019’er, clearly pissed but just about coherent: “Hi, chief. Hope I haven’t woken you.” (It’s 2.45am, FFS.)
Me: “What’s up?”
Him: “I’m stuck in a brothel in Bayswater and I’ve run out of money.”
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “I met a woman as I left the Carlton Club who offered me a drink, but I now think she is a KGB agent. She wants £500 and has left me in a room with 12 naked women and a CCTV.”
Me: “Give me a few moments and I will call you back.”
Bloody hell, this is a mess. I ring Spad [special adviser] Emma. She offers to leave her house and go personally to Bayswater on an extraction mission.
I suggest not (she sounded rather disappointed).
Instead, we devise a plan to send a taxi, extract our man, return him to the safety of his own hotel. I go back to sleep.
4.10am. Phone rings again.
Me: “Are you back safely?”
Him: “Yes, but you will never guess what happened next.” (The truest thing he said all evening.)
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “Well, I slipped out of the room and saw the taxi Emma ordered across the road, so I legged it over and jumped in. However, it turned out it was a different taxi being driven by an Afghan agent called Ahmed.”
Me: “So…”
Him: “Well, he demanded £3,000 for a blow job.”
Me: “And?”
Him: “I legged it back to the hotel and locked the door.”
£3k for a blow job? Is that on the ONS's check list for inflation?
It's juvenile, but one interesting aspect of the possible legalisation of prostitution would be seeing whether the Chancellor put VAT on such things.
I had a court case about that. HMRC tried to aggregate the brothel's earnings with that of the girls who they maintained were self employed contractors. I was for the brothel and we won. (And yes, I was paid in the normal way, not in kind).
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
You get a higher class of insult on here.
Leon is particularly lyrical with his insults. It's often the highlight of my day, nay my week, when he turns his poetic ire on little old me.
It's rare that he indulges me, I admit, but I find that faux admiring posts like this often trigger him so I shall be breathlessly (and no doubt futilely) hitting the refresh button all morning in the hope of a withering barb.
It might even rhyme.
Tbh right now I’m more shocked - indeed, horrified - by this sequence of depraved stories in the Spectator
Simon Hart was the Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire from 2010 to 2024. Following a stint as secretary of state for Wales, he was appointed chief whip by Rishi Sunak in October 2022. His diary covers the ensuing 21 months until the general election.
November 24 2022
The phone rings at 2.45am from a 2019’er, clearly pissed but just about coherent: “Hi, chief. Hope I haven’t woken you.” (It’s 2.45am, FFS.)
Me: “What’s up?”
Him: “I’m stuck in a brothel in Bayswater and I’ve run out of money.”
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “I met a woman as I left the Carlton Club who offered me a drink, but I now think she is a KGB agent. She wants £500 and has left me in a room with 12 naked women and a CCTV.”
Me: “Give me a few moments and I will call you back.”
Bloody hell, this is a mess. I ring Spad [special adviser] Emma. She offers to leave her house and go personally to Bayswater on an extraction mission.
I suggest not (she sounded rather disappointed).
Instead, we devise a plan to send a taxi, extract our man, return him to the safety of his own hotel. I go back to sleep.
4.10am. Phone rings again.
Me: “Are you back safely?”
Him: “Yes, but you will never guess what happened next.” (The truest thing he said all evening.)
Me: “Go on…”
Him: “Well, I slipped out of the room and saw the taxi Emma ordered across the road, so I legged it over and jumped in. However, it turned out it was a different taxi being driven by an Afghan agent called Ahmed.”
Me: “So…”
Him: “Well, he demanded £3,000 for a blow job.”
Me: “And?”
Him: “I legged it back to the hotel and locked the door.”
Comments
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
Inflation and the price of chocolate: People's sense of life being more expensive is structural - built in from preceding events.
The three bedroom suburban London semi I was brought up in has increased in value well over 100 fold since about 1960. What you buy one for now would then, in cash terms, have bought the whole road.
A few pence or pounds up or down in the price of chocolate makes no difference to how that seems.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
Plus if the unthinkable happened and Russia fully acquired Ukraine, the Poles would be very wise to ensure the whole of the Ukrainian drone infrastructrue - stocks, manufacturing, drone builders and especially battle-hardened operators - were given refugee status and allowed across the border.
Poland is Europe's true wall of defence.
(Others can be added like, as here, Blurring or abolishing the independence of the legal process and judiciary),
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
"This week, 2,500 UK troops from the Army's high readiness force, the First Division, have been taking part in a large Nato exercise in Romania"...
"Brigadier Andy Watson, who is commanding the British contribution to the Nato exercise, says his brigade "is absolutely ready" should they receive orders to deploy to Ukraine."
"In terms of numbers of troops that might be needed, Brigadier Watson said 'clearly what the force package would look like would be dependent on what the prime minister and the Ministry of Defence would like'.
But he said 'it's absolutely not' something the UK could do on its own. 'I think the prime minister has been very clear that the UK would contribute to efforts, but absolutely not doing it on our own,' says Brigadier Watson."
So it's not happening then. The last sentence quoted was presumably phrased to sugarcoat the meaning of the preceding sentence.
And I'm not sure even then, given that was predicated on the keystone of Singapore that seemed to be about 10th on the list for men, material and ships.
Try here.
It said cheese and eggs have increased over the year. Cannot say I have noticed on these or bread.
I have noticed the cartons of fruit juice I buy, to turn into alcohol, have increased again.
But get proper tax advice because getting it wrong can be expensive and is not worth the worry.
A couple of years back I heard a podcast discussion about whether Putin was a fascist. The expert said he was not, because fascists change the laws to enable themselves into power. IMV he was utterly incorrect (and sadly the interviewer did not challenge him). Firstly, Putin has changed the laws, e.g. over term limits. Secondly, what happens if the laws don't need to be changed much for a fascist to have power? What happens if one fascist changes the laws, then another fascist takes over? Or the state's laws are so lax in the first place that they allow fascism?
So all they can train for is to defend NATO nations
Of course COVID was going to kills hundreds of thousands of people. The NHS is absolutely ****** going forward.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6-million-adults-do-not-do-a-monthly-brisk-10-minute-walk
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/usda-accidentally-fired-officials-bird-flu-rehire-rcna192716
This is the supposed private sector efficiency we keep being told is going to be wonderful?
PB is so useful for everything.
The only entities that have any power left to oppose him are the individual states I think. Trump will wield the power of the federal government to try and assert total control over them too I imagine.
However representative, as opposed to direct, democracy is still better than dictatorship or absolute monarchy and means fewer revolutions
FWIW the two bulwarks to watch in USA - I have no doubt at all that Trump and Trumpism is a bad outfit under whatever emerging title - is the 'rule of law' and the fanatical devotion the USA has had for free speech and a diverse media.
Which I can't afford in the quantities I used a couple of years ago.
It's hardly enforced privation, but what used to be a food staple isn't any more.
"Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited. Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it — three years. You should have never been there. You should have never started it. You should have made a deal.
We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law in Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine — I mean I hate to say it, but he’s down at 4% approval rating — and the country’s been blown to smithereens,”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/18/trump-blames-zelenskyy-ukraine-war-020517
It's rare that he indulges me, I admit, but I find that faux admiring posts like this often trigger him so I shall be breathlessly (and no doubt futilely) hitting the refresh button all morning in the hope of a withering barb.
It might even rhyme.
But that's about it.
Any more, we don't have the logistics support, even if we had a few more bodies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
Alito and Thomas will support Trump regardless of what he does but the other conservative judges could still find a spine . If the SCOTUS don’t step in then effectively the US constitution has been totally shredded .
Feels like a 2nd opinion is required.
Better to trash their economy instead. "Whoops, there goes another rubber factory plant..."
Whilst quite a lot of drone strike on refineries and tank farms might not destroy the whole plant, they are not getting repaired because their owners don't have the money to fix them, or can't afford interest at 21%. So the whole plant is actually being taken off line. The 3rd Ukrainian Book-keeper Division and the 2nd Forensic Accountants are sifting through their accounts to work out which broke refinery to target next.
Jonathan Reynolds is a prime example of why the Labour Government will fail. My son at uni knows more about trade and business than he does. He lacks ideas, knowledge and any empathy with the SME business owners who he is meant to support.
Was listening to Fraser Nelson today on Youtube. His expose on the benefits system is damming and he explains why it is already clear it wont get better soon. We are on a tanker heading for the rocks and the crew are unable to turn the ship around. There is a real possibility that we will see a mini earthquake at May and an even bigger one in May 2026.
It's actually the avoiding shutdowns business, as people tend to notice if their health cover, or their social security payments disappear overnight.
Most industries in North Korea are nationalised too while in Norway corporations are private or shareholder owned
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1892081329312813478
This is were the 'anti-woke' agenda has been heading for some time: not just against woke, but against women, and against anyone who dares to be different.
In order for her to make the most of those years and have sufficient funds. We are exploring options with regards to her negligence settlement.
Wouldn't expect you to care about that mind.
It
(So some people put the end of Spain's democratic transition as late as 1996- that was the first time that a defeated but still functional government handed over to a different one.)
The rest of his team have no background in business or trade. Just SPAD's/NGO's/Charities.
At least she didn't recommend Ukranian minerals
IQ typically shows a slightly asymmetric distribution, with a heavier tail on the lower end (more with very low IQs than very high IQs), which means the arithmetic mean and the median will not coincide. Differences in mean IQ may just come down to differences in the very low IQ bulge, which typically relate to obstetric and health problems, rather than differences to most of the distribution.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/confessions-of-a-luxury-travel-writer/
23 did not used to be a young age to have children. It might be the secular increase in this age (and not tax or benefits) is responsible for reshaping the age pyramid and turning the retirement system into a ponzi scheme depending on faster and faster immigration.
Are there many other candidates for the most destructive clown in history? Even Nero played a better class of lyre.
So the aircraft “landed” at double the sink for a hard landing.
Why that happened is not known, as yet.
Whether this data, suitably anonymised, can be fed back to the ONS is another question. Perhaps it already is.
Yes, the health protection functions continued with less disruption, although even then I find working with UKHSA (I had an honorary contract with PHE and do know with UKHSA) that many things that worked in PHE had to be re-invented after the organisational change.
Imagine confusing the words "confessions" and "boasts".
I blame whoever was in charge of education just over a decade ago.
Something you said the other day stuck with me.
Something to the effect that lawyers don’t like ambiguity in the law?
Is this a generational thing? It seems to me that there are a number of lawyers who delight in using the law as a playground to create new rights and (effectively) new law.
I ask, because I am concerned by any drift to legislating courts. I think that a large chunk of the problems in the US is down to the Supreme Court becoming the third and most powerful chamber of the legislature.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-impeachment-conviction-five-people-2022-4
After a long time of rising IQs - the so-called “Flynn Effect” - IQs are now declining, across the west
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/3283
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iq-rates-are-dropping-many-developed-countries-doesn-t-bode-ncna1008576
Why are you such a moron?
It wouldn’t matter if you were just a private moron wanking away at home, but AIUI you actually teach at a major university and you were on SAGE
And you are a fucking pinhead
No wonder the nation is screwed