Dame Andrea Jenkyns @andreajenkyns does a campaign video clip with some dude who represents deepest Lincs and is standing as candidate for Reform in Sutton.
She asks what are the problems - one of the key one he lists are having something and somewhere for young people to go and do i.e. fund youth centres and youth key workers etc. Her response is: 'and of course we want to keep local taxes low and cut out waste'
Just fantasy, bar room pissed talk bollocks, frankly. Funding youth workers needs money. Money councils don't have because they are being cut to the bone and what they do have is being spent on social care for the boomers.
Back in the 1990s the moral panic was about teleworking. There were masses of literature published about this at the time. Them new-fangled computer thingies...
One of James Burke's documentary series includes an episode on this exact topic.
If a computer chip allows you to telecommute, what happens to the offices? The public transport? The shops and cafes?
If what is reported is true you can see why the judge was arrested. You can't have judges assisting the escape from the authorities of somebody with an arrest warrant against them (and it sounds like a long criminal history and previously deported), no matter how much they might not like the law.
accused Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan of "intentionally misdirecting" immigration agents away from a Mexican man they were trying to arrest last week.
That's pretty much every police officer and lawyer in american TV procedurals in trouble, I don't know that I've ever seen one where they don't at the least fail to report to immigration agents or through a 'friend' make things right for the immigrant of the week.
Since real US cops on the whole seem very Trumpy I assume it is not very true to life.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
He’s not an illegal immigrant. He’s got leave to stay, effectively asylum has been granted.
It's one of the more malign achievements of the US right to blur the distinction between categories of immigrants, so that all those without a permanent right to remain, are assumed to be illegal.
It goes further than that. Trump wants to deport US citizens and multiple citizens have been held for periods by ICE.
If what is reported is true you can see why the judge was arrested. You can't have judges assisting the escape from the authorities of somebody with an arrest warrant against them (and it sounds like a long criminal history and previously deported), no matter how much they might not like the law.
accused Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan of "intentionally misdirecting" immigration agents away from a Mexican man they were trying to arrest last week.
That's pretty much every police officer and lawyer in american TV procedurals in trouble, I don't know that I've ever seen one where they don't at the least fail to report to immigration agents or through a 'friend' make things right for the immigrant of the week.
Since real US cops on the whole seem very Trumpy I assume it is not very true to life.
Aren't those stories normally though of an illegal immigrant who hasn't done anything more illegal than a speeding ticket and we the viewer are encouraged to agree that it is totally wrong to deport them even if they were in the country illegally because family, nice person, made a tiny mistake.
In this case, sounds totally the opposite. Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, has a violent criminal record with charges including strangulation and suffocation, battery, and domestic abuse. He illegally entered the U.S. twice.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns @andreajenkyns does a campaign video clip with some dude who represents deepest Lincs and is standing as candidate for Reform in Sutton.
She asks what are the problems - one of the key one he lists are having something and somewhere for young people to go and do i.e. fund youth centres and youth key workers etc. Her response is: 'and of course we want to keep local taxes low and cut out waste'
Just fantasy, bar room pissed talk bollocks, frankly. Funding youth workers needs money. Money councils don't have because they are being cut to the bone and what they do have is being spent on social care for the boomers.
It's not a problem unique to Reform, but not being in charge of any councils they are probably more likely to push vague, er, reform as the solution to all ills. They neither know nor care how much councils have had to scrimp and cut back (as a party anyway, I have seen actual candidates who do acknowledge it won't be easy, even if they insist it can still be done), and the public are dissatisfied enough they might be willing to buy the argument they can be taxed less and get more without difficulty.
What will be interesting where they will likely get control of councils is whether they make the tough choices necessary to fund X, or if they get 'captured' and make incremental savings and more limited ambition on investment like everyone else.
If what is reported is true you can see why the judge was arrested. You can't have judges assisting the escape from the authorities of somebody with an arrest warrant against them (and it sounds like a long criminal history and previously deported), no matter how much they might not like the law.
accused Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan of "intentionally misdirecting" immigration agents away from a Mexican man they were trying to arrest last week.
That's pretty much every police officer and lawyer in american TV procedurals in trouble, I don't know that I've ever seen one where they don't at the least fail to report to immigration agents or through a 'friend' make things right for the immigrant of the week.
Since real US cops on the whole seem very Trumpy I assume it is not very true to life.
Aren't those stories normally though of an illegal immigrant who hasn't done anything more illegal than a speeding ticket and we the viewer are encouraged to agree that it is totally wrong to deport them even if they were in the country illegally because family, nice person, made a tiny mistake.
In this case, sounds totally the opposite. Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, has a violent criminal record with charges including strangulation and suffocation, battery, and domestic abuse. He illegally entered the U.S. twice.
Indeed, I was just considering the general way it is presented in media, as the presumption in such shows is that ICE are outright malevolent, not just doing a job. I feel like it would be more realistic sometimes to have at least one main character be 'I'm sorry mate, but I do have to pass this on, it's my job'.
Social workers also get horrible treatment in most such shows - in order to enable the main characters to look after or help a distressed child or something and be the hero, social workers have to be callous, incompetent, or completely absent.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
He’s not an illegal immigrant. He’s got leave to stay, effectively asylum has been granted.
It's one of the more malign achievements of the US right to blur the distinction between categories of immigrants, so that all those without a permanent right to remain, are assumed to be illegal.
It goes further than that. Trump wants to deport US citizens and multiple citizens have been held for periods by ICE.
Quite possibly.
But the tactic has been to blur - or actively flout - the boundaries of the law while targeting the most unpopular.
Hence the entirely illegal rendition to a foreign jail, to face possible life imprisonment, of alleged gang members.
And when challenged in it, to ignore the legal argument, and simply assert that they are bad people.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
Some states go out of their way to make life easy for illegal immigrants; so in California, you don't need any proof of citizenship to get a driver's license for example. In Arizona, by contrast, if you're not a citizen (or have a valid visa), you can't get a license.
The California one leads to some weird things. My wife forgot her passport when she went to change the address on her driving license. They said "well, if you don't have a passport showing a valid visa, we'll have to give the driving license we give to the undocumented." Which lasts a full 10 years.
I - by contrast - got a driver's license that lasted until my visa expired last year. In possession of my new visa, I returned to the Department of Motor Vehicles, to renew my license and only to discover that I had to take my bloody driving test again.
This is the problem with any future deals of course. Many would love it, some would hate it, so it is not as simple as just combining and assuming all will be well, even if most of us usually lump them together in a broad sense, and it means the leadership are often too terrified of consistently backing or repudiating a single approach, though they do occasionally lean one way or another.
It would be helpful if my fellow Conservatives got it into their heads that Reform are not the slightest bit interested in a deal. They are trying to destroy the Conservative Party. Stop pleading for them to play nice and start fighting for your lives https://nitter.poast.org/GavinBarwell/status/1915706397120962597#m
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
How often does Farage work from his Clacton office?
Hopefully infrequently, his job's in Westminster
Isn't it in both?
The reason MPs don’t normally attend Westminster on Fridays is so that they can hold constituency meetings.
No it's not, it's so they can go to their homes in the country. The same reason as dress-down Friday.
Evidence? As an MP I usually had surgeries Fridays and Saturdays. My only real home was a rented annex to someone's house in the constituency, though I also rented a 1-bed flat in London.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
He’s not an illegal immigrant. He’s got leave to stay, effectively asylum has been granted.
It's one of the more malign achievements of the US right to blur the distinction between categories of immigrants, so that all those without a permanent right to remain, are assumed to be illegal.
It goes further than that. Trump wants to deport US citizens and multiple citizens have been held for periods by ICE.
Quite possibly.
But the tactic has been to blur - or actively flout - the boundaries of the law while targeting the most unpopular.
Hence the entirely illegal rendition to a foreign jail, to face possible life imprisonment, of alleged gang members.
And when challenged in it, to ignore the legal argument, and simply assert that they are bad people.
It is the same here, of course. Our resident nativist lumps together illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and foreign-born UK citizens.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Remembrance Day a bank holiday?
As someone who works in a public facing job in the Civil Service, I'm getting really sick of self entitled idiots threatening me with a Doge purge if I don't do exactly what they want.
Look deep inside yourself and I think you'll find that everyone in the civil service and local government should be working for peanuts, and three times harder, and be grateful for it as none of them do a day's work and would never survive in the private sector. That's called motivation right there.
The hilarious thing is that it usually comes after someone has asked the state to get more involved in some grievance they have.
We have a bit of a problem in that we denigrate the those working in the public sector but also expect a lot more from it than ever before, and there's only so much money that can possibly be put into it even if things were 100% efficient.
I'm not immune to this sort of thing, I expect a lot better from the police for example but also have fundamental concerns with the way they operate and many of the people working for it, but the issues we have are not as simple as just Elon Musking it up. Dead wood can be chopped but the forest was likely cultivated for a reason and can't just be cleared.
There is definitely a discussion to be had about reform in the public sector but the reality is that a lot of inefficiency comes from politicians not wanting to make difficult choices. You see this up close if you work in the Civil Service. You could remove one less used service to divert staff to a more in demand service. You take this to the minister for a decision and then they realise that the less popular service has a well funded and vocal lobby group who want to keep it so they tell you to keep staffing both services.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns @andreajenkyns does a campaign video clip with some dude who represents deepest Lincs and is standing as candidate for Reform in Sutton.
She asks what are the problems - one of the key one he lists are having something and somewhere for young people to go and do i.e. fund youth centres and youth key workers etc. Her response is: 'and of course we want to keep local taxes low and cut out waste'
Just fantasy, bar room pissed talk bollocks, frankly. Funding youth workers needs money. Money councils don't have because they are being cut to the bone and what they do have is being spent on social care for the boomers.
This is the problem with any future deals of course. Many would love it, some would hate it, so it is not as simple as just combining and assuming all will be well, even if most of us usually lump them together in a broad sense, and it means the leadership are often too terrified of consistently backing or repudiating a single approach, though they do occasionally lean one way or another.
It would be helpful if my fellow Conservatives got it into their heads that Reform are not the slightest bit interested in a deal. They are trying to destroy the Conservative Party. Stop pleading for them to play nice and start fighting for your lives https://nitter.poast.org/GavinBarwell/status/1915706397120962597#m
It will be news to all that Gavin Barwell is a Conservative.
This is the problem with any future deals of course. Many would love it, some would hate it, so it is not as simple as just combining and assuming all will be well, even if most of us usually lump them together in a broad sense, and it means the leadership are often too terrified of consistently backing or repudiating a single approach, though they do occasionally lean one way or another.
It would be helpful if my fellow Conservatives got it into their heads that Reform are not the slightest bit interested in a deal. They are trying to destroy the Conservative Party. Stop pleading for them to play nice and start fighting for your lives https://nitter.poast.org/GavinBarwell/status/1915706397120962597#m
It will be news to all that Gavin Barwell is a Conservative.
He may not be part of the larger proportion of the party, but there is a sizable chunk of the party who are actively hostile to Reform, not merely afraid of them.
Maybe a formal or informal deal between RefCon would be more beneficial for both overall, with those who don't like it buggering off to LD or Labour, but it's not easy for any party to take a choice which will see a significant number of its present members upset - but that seems inevitable one way or another.
Back in the 1990s the moral panic was about teleworking. There were masses of literature published about this at the time. Them new-fangled computer thingies...
One of James Burke's documentary series includes an episode on this exact topic.
If a computer chip allows you to telecommute, what happens to the offices? The public transport? The shops and cafes?
Only as regards connectivity, not what he says about freedom. He's 180 degrees wrong on that. Frank Zappa had it right:
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There is a difference between an accident, such as spilling hot coffee, and deliberate intent. Cyclists running red lights generally don’t do so by accident.
I made that absolutely clear in my description. Firstly the cycling stats do not distinguish between accidents and negligence (see my first para). I did the same regarding sailing. Some will be accidental some will be negligent. When I mentioned the other examples I specifically described the scenarios where they were negligent not accidents.
There are accidents where the cyclist or coffee carrier is not at fault. There will be occasions where they are at fault but it will simply be a civil compensation claim and there are times when there is serious negligence and therefore a criminal case. It makes no difference whether it is a cyclist, coffee carrier, sailor or farmer and his cow.
Sometimes there is no fault, sometimes there is and sometimes it is serious enough to prosecute. Why single out a cyclist over a sailor, coffee carrier or farmer when the stats for the others are comparable. Actually I don't know the stats for negligent waiters.
Why single out cyclists who seriously injure on our roads for a lesser sentence than their driver counterparts when nearly 200 pedestrians a year are seriously injured by them?
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
If councils have been mothballing and not selling off office space when they are desperate for cash, that seems more unlikely. And probably a bigger scandal. After all, one of the advantages of WFH is that it's considerably cheaper for the employer.
The typical sequence involves downsizing the office, mandating that everyone comes in 3 days per week, and then some geek doing the calc that demonstrates that there are insufficient desks for this to be possible.
Or you book desks in advance on a first come first served basis so some have to come in on Mondays or Fridays not just midweek to meet their 2 or 3 days in the office
Example:
100 staff. Assume 10 on holiday, sick or working away. So 90 need a desk 3 days. That is 270 desk-days. Divided over a 5- day week with even occupation requires 54 desks. But the company has downsized, and there are only 40 desks. 14 people have no desk each day.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There were only 45 serious marine casualties in 2023 in the UK and that is an activity consented to by the sailors, a pedestrian crossing the road hit by a speeding cyclist isn't
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There is a difference between an accident, such as spilling hot coffee, and deliberate intent. Cyclists running red lights generally don’t do so by accident.
I made that absolutely clear in my description. Firstly the cycling stats do not distinguish between accidents and negligence (see my first para). I did the same regarding sailing. Some will be accidental some will be negligent. When I mentioned the other examples I specifically described the scenarios where they were negligent not accidents.
There are accidents where the cyclist or coffee carrier is not at fault. There will be occasions where they are at fault but it will simply be a civil compensation claim and there are times when there is serious negligence and therefore a criminal case. It makes no difference whether it is a cyclist, coffee carrier, sailor or farmer and his cow.
Sometimes there is no fault, sometimes there is and sometimes it is serious enough to prosecute. Why single out a cyclist over a sailor, coffee carrier or farmer when the stats for the others are comparable. Actually I don't know the stats for negligent waiters.
Why single out cyclists who seriously injure on our roads for a lesser sentence than their driver counterparts when nearly 200 pedestrians a year are seriously injured by them?
Because a car is a lethal machine. It's driver needs to pass a test, the car needs an MOT and so forth. It kills many many more people and without regulation it would kill many more. There is no comparison.
You should answer the question as to why a cyclist needs specific laws for causing death and injury to others whereas all the many activities that are more dangerous to others than cycling don't.
Cyclists cause far fewer deaths and injuries to others than a whole host of other activities. Why aren't you campaigning for special laws for those activities.
Why are general laws covering negligence for those activities ok, but not for cycling if the incidents of death and injury are comparable or worse. It makes no sense.
PS I would query the 200. I looked it up for multiple years and it was just over 100 with only 1 to 5 deaths a year PLUS in many of those cases it will NOT be the cyclists fault. So how many are we really talking about?
So far, I have not mentioned how funny that common adjective often is when used here, but I just have to say that a f*****g wrench is a perversion I have never heard of -- and don't want to hear of now.
But it did make me laugh, for which I thank those who used the phrase.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There were only 45 serious marine casualties in 2023 in the UK and that is an activity consented to by the sailors, a pedestrian crossing the road hit by a speeding cyclist isn't
Not that it matters because I can list out umpteen activities that are more dangerous to third parties than cycling so I don't need to justify the sailing stats but your stat is nonsense. Marine casualties is not sailing! They are those big metal things with diesel engines not sailing boats. In 2016 (the only year I could find) 10 people died sailing and over 700 were seriously injured in the UK. And not all of them will have consented. Not if you get hit by another boat for instance (which I have, fortunately the only injury was financial)
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There is a difference between an accident, such as spilling hot coffee, and deliberate intent. Cyclists running red lights generally don’t do so by accident.
I made that absolutely clear in my description. Firstly the cycling stats do not distinguish between accidents and negligence (see my first para). I did the same regarding sailing. Some will be accidental some will be negligent. When I mentioned the other examples I specifically described the scenarios where they were negligent not accidents.
There are accidents where the cyclist or coffee carrier is not at fault. There will be occasions where they are at fault but it will simply be a civil compensation claim and there are times when there is serious negligence and therefore a criminal case. It makes no difference whether it is a cyclist, coffee carrier, sailor or farmer and his cow.
Sometimes there is no fault, sometimes there is and sometimes it is serious enough to prosecute. Why single out a cyclist over a sailor, coffee carrier or farmer when the stats for the others are comparable. Actually I don't know the stats for negligent waiters.
Why single out cyclists who seriously injure on our roads for a lesser sentence than their driver counterparts when nearly 200 pedestrians a year are seriously injured by them?
Because a car is a lethal machine. It's driver needs to pass a test, the car needs an MOT and so forth. It kills many many more people and without regulation it would kill many more. There is no comparison.
You should answer the question as to why a cyclist needs specific laws for causing death and injury to others whereas all the many activities that are more dangerous to others than cycling don't.
Cyclists cause far fewer deaths and injuries to others than a whole host of other activities. Why aren't you campaigning for special laws for those activities.
Why are general laws covering negligence for those activities ok, but not for cycling if the incidents of death and injury are comparable or worse. It makes no sense.
PS I would query the 200. I looked it up for multiple years and it was just over 100 with only 1 to 5 deaths a year PLUS in many of those cases it will NOT be the cyclists fault. So how many are we really talking about?
A bicycle ridden by a twat of a cyclist is a lethal machine.
Most cyclists aren't twats. That should not be any defence of those who are.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There is a difference between an accident, such as spilling hot coffee, and deliberate intent. Cyclists running red lights generally don’t do so by accident.
I made that absolutely clear in my description. Firstly the cycling stats do not distinguish between accidents and negligence (see my first para). I did the same regarding sailing. Some will be accidental some will be negligent. When I mentioned the other examples I specifically described the scenarios where they were negligent not accidents.
There are accidents where the cyclist or coffee carrier is not at fault. There will be occasions where they are at fault but it will simply be a civil compensation claim and there are times when there is serious negligence and therefore a criminal case. It makes no difference whether it is a cyclist, coffee carrier, sailor or farmer and his cow.
Sometimes there is no fault, sometimes there is and sometimes it is serious enough to prosecute. Why single out a cyclist over a sailor, coffee carrier or farmer when the stats for the others are comparable. Actually I don't know the stats for negligent waiters.
Why single out cyclists who seriously injure on our roads for a lesser sentence than their driver counterparts when nearly 200 pedestrians a year are seriously injured by them?
Because a car is a lethal machine. It's driver needs to pass a test, the car needs an MOT and so forth. It kills many many more people and without regulation it would kill many more. There is no comparison.
You should answer the question as to why a cyclist needs specific laws for causing death and injury to others whereas all the many activities that are more dangerous to others than cycling don't.
Cyclists cause far fewer deaths and injuries to others than a whole host of other activities. Why aren't you campaigning for special laws for those activities.
Why are general laws covering negligence for those activities ok, but not for cycling if the incidents of death and injury are comparable or worse. It makes no sense.
PS I would query the 200. I looked it up for multiple years and it was just over 100 with only 1 to 5 deaths a year PLUS in many of those cases it will NOT be the cyclists fault. So how many are we really talking about?
A bicycle ridden by a twat of a cyclist is a lethal machine.
Most cyclists aren't twats. That should not be any defence of those who are.
I agree completely. And they should be punished accordingly if they kill or injure someone. Do you want a special law for it though or are you happy with the current laws?
If you want a special law for it, as @hyifd does, do you also want a special law for all the other ways a twat can injure you? So a special law for roller bladders. A special law for killer cows. A special law for every means someone can act like a twat and hurt you.
Or why don't we just use the laws we have and not clutter up the statue book with pointless laws.
A cyclist who knocks down a little old lady is no different to a rollerblader who knocks her down or someone who deliberately trips her up.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There is a difference between an accident, such as spilling hot coffee, and deliberate intent. Cyclists running red lights generally don’t do so by accident.
I made that absolutely clear in my description. Firstly the cycling stats do not distinguish between accidents and negligence (see my first para). I did the same regarding sailing. Some will be accidental some will be negligent. When I mentioned the other examples I specifically described the scenarios where they were negligent not accidents.
There are accidents where the cyclist or coffee carrier is not at fault. There will be occasions where they are at fault but it will simply be a civil compensation claim and there are times when there is serious negligence and therefore a criminal case. It makes no difference whether it is a cyclist, coffee carrier, sailor or farmer and his cow.
Sometimes there is no fault, sometimes there is and sometimes it is serious enough to prosecute. Why single out a cyclist over a sailor, coffee carrier or farmer when the stats for the others are comparable. Actually I don't know the stats for negligent waiters.
Why single out cyclists who seriously injure on our roads for a lesser sentence than their driver counterparts when nearly 200 pedestrians a year are seriously injured by them?
Because a car is a lethal machine. It's driver needs to pass a test, the car needs an MOT and so forth. It kills many many more people and without regulation it would kill many more. There is no comparison.
You should answer the question as to why a cyclist needs specific laws for causing death and injury to others whereas all the many activities that are more dangerous to others than cycling don't.
Cyclists cause far fewer deaths and injuries to others than a whole host of other activities. Why aren't you campaigning for special laws for those activities.
Why are general laws covering negligence for those activities ok, but not for cycling if the incidents of death and injury are comparable or worse. It makes no sense.
PS I would query the 200. I looked it up for multiple years and it was just over 100 with only 1 to 5 deaths a year PLUS in many of those cases it will NOT be the cyclists fault. So how many are we really talking about?
A bicycle ridden by a twat of a cyclist is a lethal machine.
Most cyclists aren't twats. That should not be any defence of those who are.
I agree completely. And they should be punished accordingly if they kill or injure someone. Do you want a special law for it though or are you happy with the current laws?
If you want a special law for it, as @hyifd does, do you also want a special law for all the other ways a twat can injure you? So a special law for roller bladders. A special law for killer cows. A special law for every means someone can act like a twat and hurt you.
Or why don't we just use the laws we have and not clutter up the statue book with pointless laws.
A cyclist who knocks down a little old lady is no different to a rollerblader who knocks her down or someone who deliberately trips her up.
I'm not sure being a councillor now, for any party, is any fun.
You're severely constrained in what you can do by national policy and hand-me-down budget, and mainly there to take the blame for executing it and trying to square the impossible.
I think (once) Hampshire County Council sent a "what would you cut?" list round as a survey to help guide councillors. I went through it, largely looking at the big line items on social care/support and suggestions on what to trim to balance the budget/invest elsewhere, and got surprising resistance from my very right-wing parents when I suggested qualifying it all.
This is the problem with any future deals of course. Many would love it, some would hate it, so it is not as simple as just combining and assuming all will be well, even if most of us usually lump them together in a broad sense, and it means the leadership are often too terrified of consistently backing or repudiating a single approach, though they do occasionally lean one way or another.
It would be helpful if my fellow Conservatives got it into their heads that Reform are not the slightest bit interested in a deal. They are trying to destroy the Conservative Party. Stop pleading for them to play nice and start fighting for your lives https://nitter.poast.org/GavinBarwell/status/1915706397120962597#m
It will be news to all that Gavin Barwell is a Conservative.
A somewhat superficial man and a careerist.
You're right on the politics too. I'd probably put Wes Streeting to the right of him.
You literally can NOT be a refugee from Albania. There is no war in Albania. There is no repression - Albania is a candidate member of the EU and NATO. What ever else an Albanian in the UK is they are NOT legitimate Asylum Seekers. https://x.com/georgegalloway/status/1915554796142047419
Surprised they don't realise this is going to be seen a "black people tend to be loud" campaign.
I mean, wrongly. But it will be.
Preposterous levels of cynicism... but perhaps that's why they've gone for it? An obviously reasonable position - don't play music out loud in public places - that gets attacks by mad people on twitter Bluesky. Lib Dems look like a normal, centrist party in contrast.
They missed "speech". My habit currently is to listen to speech podcasts (eg Ukraine the Latest" for an hour on my daily walk, with the phone in the top pocket. At present it is not an issue because it is generally "meet a dog walker coming the other way every 6-7 minutes on average".
If LDs want to legislate on this they need to cover intrusive noise of all kinds.
A gent walking through London playing the Gordon Jacob Suite on his tuba should probably not be exempt.
Wasn't she claiming a couple of weeks ago she had been give only a few days to live due to injuries from some traffic accident, but it was revealed to be a total fantasy. Sounds like she was struggling mentally.
You guys have repeatedly broken this limit which leads to images being shrunk as a result, please stick to the limit or the ability to post pictures might be removed.
She was clearly a troubled woman (for understandable reasons) and all sympathy to her family.
But since when did the passive voice become the accepted form? “Dies by suicide” vs “committed suicide” makes it sound like something that was done to her rather than a choice that she made
Not that that makes the abuse of due process any better, but does hurt his case in the court of public opinion somewhat.
Along with being a wife beater. The politicians who championed his case look like they are going to have egg on their face.
But as you say, Trump is ignoring any due process and the courts reaction to it. A smarter politician would follow a legal based approach and if the courts keep stopping them deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the US, then move to faster deportation (its what previous presidents in the past have done).
I agree that the individual is essentially a red herring here, especially as there are no convictions (though perhaps there is argument about how the 'human smuggler' case was withdrawn.)
The core question here is Trump's aim to circumvent then gut the Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing due legal process to everyone. He aims to take it further and deport people who are US citizens.
As you say Trump could have followed legal process. He could have done that for pretty-much everything he has done since day one - starting eg with respecting the laws requiring him to give legally required notice to civil servants before sacking them at zero notice and destroying their departments, or respecting the law which required him to have "cause" to sack Inspectors General, and to give the legally required 30 days notice to Congress.
His core agenda is to transfer power from the legislature and the judiciary to the Executive, and then use that power - unchecked - at will.
She was clearly a troubled woman (for understandable reasons) and all sympathy to her family.
But since when did the passive voice become the accepted form? “Dies by suicide” vs “committed suicide” makes it sound like something that was done to her rather than a choice that she made
The story was posted by a US-based correspondent. We are lucky it says "dies" and not "passes". The BBC also published the story before the other outlets I checked before posting it here (which obviously was not all of them).
Not that that makes the abuse of due process any better, but does hurt his case in the court of public opinion somewhat.
Along with being a wife beater. The politicians who championed his case look like they are going to have egg on their face.
But as you say, Trump is ignoring any due process and the courts reaction to it. A smarter politician would follow a legal based approach and if the courts keep stopping them deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the US, then move to faster deportation (its what previous presidents in the past have done).
I agree that the individual is essentially a red herring here, especially as there are no convictions (though perhaps there is argument about how the 'human smuggler' case was withdrawn.)
The core question here is Trump's aim to circumvent then gut the Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing due legal process to everyone. He aims to take it further and deport people who are US citizens.
As you say Trump could have followed legal process. He could have done that for pretty-much everything he has done since day one - starting eg with respecting the laws requiring him to give legally required notice to civil servants before sacking them at zero notice and destroying their departments, or respecting the law which required him to have "cause" to sack Inspectors General, and to give the legally required 30 days notice to Congress.
His core agenda is to transfer power from the legislature and the judiciary to the Executive, and then use that power - unchecked - at will.
Agreed. What should worry us, however, is it is not Trump's own agenda (or strategy) but one that was handed to him by the Project 2025 lot. Trump is just the current, charismatic front man.
You guys have repeatedly broken this limit which leads to images being shrunk as a result, please stick to the limit or the ability to post pictures might be removed.
The last time I can recall posting two images in a day (which was probably 7-10 days ago), one was a quote from a thread the previous day.
Is this a problem for the system?
(Aside: comment noted and I'll take care.)
It's a limit, not a target.
One thing I did wonder about with images is whether reposts are charged by Vanilla. Even if there is no new storage required, there may be a bandwidth cost. There was one image in particular a couple of threads back that had many immediate responses so that the image was visible in each new comment rather than being hidden in "previous quotes".
OT the TwiX algorithm has just recommended following occasional PBer @david_herdson despite the fact he has tweeted only once since announcing his departure from Muskworld.
She was clearly a troubled woman (for understandable reasons) and all sympathy to her family.
But since when did the passive voice become the accepted form? “Dies by suicide” vs “committed suicide” makes it sound like something that was done to her rather than a choice that she made
The story was posted by a US-based correspondent. We are lucky it says "dies" and not "passes". The BBC also published the story before the other outlets I checked before posting it here (which obviously was not all of them).
These days I am a little more 'husk off', and I'd just go for "killed herself".
Similarly, "dies" is a circumlocution routinely used for someone killed by dangerous or other driving of a vehicle. Alongside "a car left the road", "a car ran down a 75-year old" and so on.
Not a good recommendation for self-driving cars !
eg the Colchester crash:
XXX, popularly known as DJ, died alongside three friends when their car hit a building in Colchester, https://archive.is/wip/Ss9HN
OT the TwiX algorithm has just recommended following occasional PBer @david_herdson despite the fact he has tweeted only once since announcing his departure from Muskworld.
OT the TwiX algorithm has just recommended following occasional PBer @david_herdson despite the fact he has tweeted only once since announcing his departure from Muskworld.
She was clearly a troubled woman (for understandable reasons) and all sympathy to her family.
But since when did the passive voice become the accepted form? “Dies by suicide” vs “committed suicide” makes it sound like something that was done to her rather than a choice that she made
The story was posted by a US-based correspondent. We are lucky it says "dies" and not "passes". The BBC also published the story before the other outlets I checked before posting it here (which obviously was not all of them).
The Times uses the same "dies by suicide" phrase, again from America.
I'm not sure being a councillor now, for any party, is any fun.
You're severely constrained in what you can do by national policy and hand-me-down budget, and mainly there to take the blame for executing it and trying to square the impossible.
I think (once) Hampshire County Council sent a "what would you cut?" list round as a survey to help guide councillors. I went through it, largely looking at the big line items on social care/support and suggestions on what to trim to balance the budget/invest elsewhere, and got surprising resistance from my very right-wing parents when I suggested qualifying it all.
There is no appetite for it.
Hampshire Tories are in deep trouble, having tried to get permission for an extraordinary 15% council tax increase with something similar again next year, but been held to the national cap of (effectively) 5%. The county is heading the way of Surrey.
Meanwhile Kemi is doing her best to assure everyone that voting Tory means sound financial management….
OT the TwiX algorithm has just recommended following occasional PBer @david_herdson despite the fact he has tweeted only once since announcing his departure from Muskworld.
She was clearly a troubled woman (for understandable reasons) and all sympathy to her family.
Yes, and probably not helped by media attention to the cause of her fame.
It's many years since I did psychiatry, but when I did I was taught to directly ask patients if they had been sexually abused. Often no one had ever asked the direct question. A very high percentage both male and female had been, often decades before, and as often as not incest.
Mr Chump's Administration are suing New York to try and stop their congestion charge trial, using the legal BS they specialise in.
Rather than attaching a letter to Sean Duffy the public docket (= all the documents relating to a case), they attached an internal strategy memo giving an assessment to Sean Duffy as to why the case was highly likely to fail.
I'm not sure being a councillor now, for any party, is any fun.
You're severely constrained in what you can do by national policy and hand-me-down budget, and mainly there to take the blame for executing it and trying to square the impossible.
I think (once) Hampshire County Council sent a "what would you cut?" list round as a survey to help guide councillors. I went through it, largely looking at the big line items on social care/support and suggestions on what to trim to balance the budget/invest elsewhere, and got surprising resistance from my very right-wing parents when I suggested qualifying it all.
There is no appetite for it.
Hampshire Tories are in deep trouble, having tried to get permission for an extraordinary 15% council tax increase with something similar again next year, but been held to the national cap of (effectively) 5%. The county is heading the way of Surrey.
Meanwhile Kemi is doing her best to assure everyone that voting Tory means sound financial management….
So much is a statutory responsibility that the council cannot legally cut that bankruptcy is a constant fear.
Farage wants to cut children's services for special educational needs for example. Even if that were desired, it would require national policy change, not local.
OT the TwiX algorithm has just recommended following occasional PBer @david_herdson despite the fact he has tweeted only once since announcing his departure from Muskworld.
The Home Office has launched a drive for landlords to house asylum seekers following a surge in Channel migrant crossings.
Serco, one of three private contractors working for the Home Office, is offering landlords five-year guaranteed full rent deals to house asylum seekers at the taxpayer’s expense.
Any professional landlord will reject this "Rent to Rent" deal as you can never get the property back. Such properties will likely be HMO's which Councils will likely need to licence. Local Council here has R2R deals for temporary accomodation of the homeless. The properties don't meet normal standards never mind the Decent Homes Standards as they exempt themselves.
OT the TwiX algorithm has just recommended following occasional PBer @david_herdson despite the fact he has tweeted only once since announcing his departure from Muskworld.
She was clearly a troubled woman (for understandable reasons) and all sympathy to her family.
But since when did the passive voice become the accepted form? “Dies by suicide” vs “committed suicide” makes it sound like something that was done to her rather than a choice that she made
"...Maurice feels fantastic. What else matters? Basically, that is Blue Labour in a nutshell. Like Brexit, he watches from afar lapping it up, entirely unaffected, as others pay the price. Such delicious self-indulgence..."
"...Maurice feels fantastic. What else matters? Basically, that is Blue Labour in a nutshell. Like Brexit, he watches from afar lapping it up, entirely unaffected, as others pay the price. Such delicious self-indulgence..."
I'm not sure being a councillor now, for any party, is any fun.
You're severely constrained in what you can do by national policy and hand-me-down budget, and mainly there to take the blame for executing it and trying to square the impossible.
I think (once) Hampshire County Council sent a "what would you cut?" list round as a survey to help guide councillors. I went through it, largely looking at the big line items on social care/support and suggestions on what to trim to balance the budget/invest elsewhere, and got surprising resistance from my very right-wing parents when I suggested qualifying it all.
There is no appetite for it.
Hampshire Tories are in deep trouble, having tried to get permission for an extraordinary 15% council tax increase with something similar again next year, but been held to the national cap of (effectively) 5%. The county is heading the way of Surrey.
Meanwhile Kemi is doing her best to assure everyone that voting Tory means sound financial management….
So much is a statutory responsibility that the council cannot legally cut that bankruptcy is a constant fear.
Farage wants to cut children's services for special educational needs for example. Even if that were desired, it would require national policy change, not local.
It would also require a radical reduction in class sizes not to have disastrous impacts on education, or at a stretch the return of caning.
She was clearly a troubled woman (for understandable reasons) and all sympathy to her family.
But since when did the passive voice become the accepted form? “Dies by suicide” vs “committed suicide” makes it sound like something that was done to her rather than a choice that she made
“Dies by suicide” is still active voice.
You are spectacularly missing the point.
She made a conscious decision to end her life. The BBC is denying her agency by implying the act was done to her not by her.
I'm not sure being a councillor now, for any party, is any fun.
You're severely constrained in what you can do by national policy and hand-me-down budget, and mainly there to take the blame for executing it and trying to square the impossible.
I think (once) Hampshire County Council sent a "what would you cut?" list round as a survey to help guide councillors. I went through it, largely looking at the big line items on social care/support and suggestions on what to trim to balance the budget/invest elsewhere, and got surprising resistance from my very right-wing parents when I suggested qualifying it all.
There is no appetite for it.
Hampshire Tories are in deep trouble, having tried to get permission for an extraordinary 15% council tax increase with something similar again next year, but been held to the national cap of (effectively) 5%. The county is heading the way of Surrey.
Meanwhile Kemi is doing her best to assure everyone that voting Tory means sound financial management….
So much is a statutory responsibility that the council cannot legally cut that bankruptcy is a constant fear.
Farage wants to cut children's services for special educational needs for example. Even if that were desired, it would require national policy change, not local.
Comments
Dame Andrea Jenkyns @andreajenkyns does a campaign video clip with some dude who represents deepest Lincs and is standing as candidate for Reform in Sutton.
She asks what are the problems - one of the key one he lists are having something and somewhere for young people to go and do i.e. fund youth centres and youth key workers etc. Her response is: 'and of course we want to keep local taxes low and cut out waste'
Just fantasy, bar room pissed talk bollocks, frankly. Funding youth workers needs money. Money councils don't have because they are being cut to the bone and what they do have is being spent on social care for the boomers.
https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1915680644556087475
I must steady my over-sensitive Americanism antenna.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QotiqG9BkyM
accused Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan of "intentionally misdirecting" immigration agents away from a Mexican man they were trying to arrest last week.
That's pretty much every police officer and lawyer in american TV procedurals in trouble, I don't know that I've ever seen one where they don't at the least fail to report to immigration agents or through a 'friend' make things right for the immigrant of the week.
Since real US cops on the whole seem very Trumpy I assume it is not very true to life.
In this case, sounds totally the opposite. Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, has a violent criminal record with charges including strangulation and suffocation, battery, and domestic abuse. He illegally entered the U.S. twice.
What will be interesting where they will likely get control of councils is whether they make the tough choices necessary to fund X, or if they get 'captured' and make incremental savings and more limited ambition on investment like everyone else.
Social workers also get horrible treatment in most such shows - in order to enable the main characters to look after or help a distressed child or something and be the hero, social workers have to be callous, incompetent, or completely absent.
Also hostage negotiators are useless.
TLDR: No.
But the tactic has been to blur - or actively flout - the boundaries of the law while targeting the most unpopular.
Hence the entirely illegal rendition to a foreign jail, to face possible life imprisonment, of alleged gang members.
And when challenged in it, to ignore the legal argument, and simply assert that they are bad people.
It would be helpful if my fellow Conservatives got it into their heads that Reform are not the slightest bit interested in a deal. They are trying to destroy the Conservative Party. Stop pleading for them to play nice and start fighting for your lives
https://nitter.poast.org/GavinBarwell/status/1915706397120962597#m
https://order-order.com/2025/04/22/coventry-city-council-hands-consultants-7-million-of-taxpayer-cash-for-microsoft-software/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/26/doordash-buy-deliveroo
I just don't get the popularity of these services, they are so expensive.
Maybe a formal or informal deal between RefCon would be more beneficial for both overall, with those who don't like it buggering off to LD or Labour, but it's not easy for any party to take a choice which will see a significant number of its present members upset - but that seems inevitable one way or another.
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
Enlarging the Rockall naval base with a teaspoon. To teach an understanding of tools.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/30/record-numbers-pedestrians-killed-injured-cyclists/
You should answer the question as to why a cyclist needs specific laws for causing death and injury to others whereas all the many activities that are more dangerous to others than cycling don't.
Cyclists cause far fewer deaths and injuries to others than a whole host of other activities. Why aren't you campaigning for special laws for those activities.
Why are general laws covering negligence for those activities ok, but not for cycling if the incidents of death and injury are comparable or worse. It makes no sense.
PS I would query the 200. I looked it up for multiple years and it was just over 100 with only 1 to 5 deaths a year PLUS in many of those cases it will NOT be the cyclists fault. So how many are we really talking about?
But it did make me laugh, for which I thank those who used the phrase.
Most cyclists aren't twats. That should not be any defence of those who are.
If you want a special law for it, as @hyifd does, do you also want a special law for all the other ways a twat can injure you? So a special law for roller bladders. A special law for killer cows. A special law for every means someone can act like a twat and hurt you.
Or why don't we just use the laws we have and not clutter up the statue book with pointless laws.
A cyclist who knocks down a little old lady is no different to a rollerblader who knocks her down or someone who deliberately trips her up.
You're severely constrained in what you can do by national policy and hand-me-down budget, and mainly there to take the blame for executing it and trying to square the impossible.
I think (once) Hampshire County Council sent a "what would you cut?" list round as a survey to help guide councillors. I went through it, largely looking at the big line items on social care/support and suggestions on what to trim to balance the budget/invest elsewhere, and got surprising resistance from my very right-wing parents when I suggested qualifying it all.
There is no appetite for it.
You're right on the politics too. I'd probably put Wes Streeting to the right of him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cql67qk0dd3o
https://x.com/georgegalloway/status/1915554796142047419
If LDs want to legislate on this they need to cover intrusive noise of all kinds.
A gent walking through London playing the Gordon Jacob Suite on his tuba should probably not be exempt.
The last time I can recall posting two images in a day (which was probably 7-10 days ago), one was a quote from a thread the previous day.
Is this a problem for the system?
(Aside: comment noted and I'll take care.)
But since when did the passive voice become the accepted form? “Dies by suicide” vs “committed suicide” makes it sound like something that was done to her rather than a choice that she made
The core question here is Trump's aim to circumvent then gut the Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing due legal process to everyone. He aims to take it further and deport people who are US citizens.
As you say Trump could have followed legal process. He could have done that for pretty-much everything he has done since day one - starting eg with respecting the laws requiring him to give legally required notice to civil servants before sacking them at zero notice and destroying their departments, or respecting the law which required him to have "cause" to sack Inspectors General, and to give the legally required 30 days notice to Congress.
His core agenda is to transfer power from the legislature and the judiciary to the Executive, and then use that power - unchecked - at will.
One thing I did wonder about with images is whether reposts are charged by Vanilla. Even if there is no new storage required, there may be a bandwidth cost. There was one image in particular a couple of threads back that had many immediate responses so that the image was visible in each new comment rather than being hidden in "previous quotes".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/apple-iphone-china-india-trump-tariffs-b2739368.html
Mission accomplished. Oh, hold on...
Similarly, "dies" is a circumlocution routinely used for someone killed by dangerous or other driving of a vehicle. Alongside "a car left the road", "a car ran down a 75-year old" and so on.
Not a good recommendation for self-driving cars !
eg the Colchester crash:
XXX, popularly known as DJ, died alongside three friends when their car hit a building in Colchester,
https://archive.is/wip/Ss9HN
Virginia Giuffre, Jeffrey Epstein accuser, dies by suicide
https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/virginia-giuffre-jeffrey-epstein-accuser-dies-by-suicide-mz3vm9sw7 (£££)
Meanwhile Kemi is doing her best to assure everyone that voting Tory means sound financial management….
https://bsky.app/profile/mattwardman.bsky.social
https://bsky.app/starter-pack/mattwardman.bsky.social/3lfk4fvp5yv26
It's many years since I did psychiatry, but when I did I was taught to directly ask patients if they had been sexually abused. Often no one had ever asked the direct question. A very high percentage both male and female had been, often decades before, and as often as not incest.
Mr Chump's Administration are suing New York to try and stop their congestion charge trial, using the legal BS they specialise in.
Rather than attaching a letter to Sean Duffy the public docket (= all the documents relating to a case), they attached an internal strategy memo giving an assessment to Sean Duffy as to why the case was highly likely to fail.
Oooops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsnr9yNEh7c
(Sympathy for the actual officer who did it, however, as it seems to be a genuine mistake.)
Farage wants to cut children's services for special educational needs for example. Even if that were desired, it would require national policy change, not local.
Not the best idea.
https://bsky.app/profile/mattwardman.bsky.social/post/3lj3zoq4hkc2d
https://bsky.app/profile/jwsidders.bsky.social/post/3lnnmesc5dk2w
No politicians are for ordinary people. They sometimes start out intending to be.
Which one would he be proposing?
NEW THREAD
She made a conscious decision to end her life. The BBC is denying her agency by implying the act was done to her not by her.