What was the percentage for "Should the government release all documents that it has which hurt my political opponents about the Jeffrey Epstein case?"
Among the American non-Republicans I know, it’s a case of
1) burn the guilty 2) if anyone on “our” side is guilty, fuck ‘em 3) if it clears out the useless on “our” side, great 4) best of all, Trump.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
We don't "know" but can make judgements on likelihood. It seems reasonable to assume that the side preventing any journalists from entering is far less likely to be telling the truth.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefings, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
Aid agencies that have a history of corruption and a vested interest to work with Hamas against the GHF that defeats their business model, while you hate Israel.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
It’s a bit non specific. Does not say from when it would be effective.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
Many of the points in the GHF thread are literally identical to Israeli government press conferences of 2023.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
Farage is planning to make a lot of current crimes legal.
Its the easy way to cut crime.
Whereas the Sultana Party will make currant crimes legal.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
In Q1 2010 ONS says there were 2.866 state employees. I chose that arbitrarily as the beginning of the last decade.
In Q1 2025 there were 4.02 million.
Has the value of the services provided by the government increased by that much? Assuming a median salary of £30k that’s £30bn of extra spending.
The government spends enough money. It just spends it badly.
I'm assuming there's a rogue 'million' missing there?
On Palestine, I noticed the BBC definitely dodged a bullet with that documentary they decided to pass on, as it appears one of the markers has a long history of making terrorist supporting social media posts.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
I thought you were in the 'old people are overprioritised' camp?
I don't think it matters what camp I'm in. Not everybody has a massive pension and like it or lump it I will be at least partly reliant on the state pension in my old age. We are not talking about disquiet about a political stance I disapprove of, we are talking about having to sell my flat or not being able to eat healthily. Due to some bad decisions I had some bite-lip prolonged periods of not-enough-money some decades ago and it took a lot of time and effort to crawl out of it. I really was not expecting to be plunged back into it by a Labour government that has catastrophically forgotten how to govern, and I won't have the resilience of my earlier years at 68.
None of the main parties give a damn about that, as long as they can protect the triple lock for the current pensioners
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
That's a huge flashing sign about the state of the nations finances. As mentioned before, household savings are already high and this would suggest they need to be higher still. And if you can't save, you're in for a miserable life.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
We don't "know" but can make judgements on likelihood. It seems reasonable to assume that the side preventing any journalists from entering is far less likely to be telling the truth.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
That's a huge flashing sign about the state of the nations finances. As mentioned before, household savings are already high and this would suggest they need to be higher still. And if you can't save, you're in for a miserable life.
Yet we have @TimS saying, quite plausibly, we save too much and should be spending.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
Farage is planning to make a lot of current crimes legal.
Its the easy way to cut crime.
Whereas the Sultana Party will make currant crimes legal.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
In Q1 2010 ONS says there were 2.866 state employees. I chose that arbitrarily as the beginning of the last decade.
In Q1 2025 there were 4.02 million.
Has the value of the services provided by the government increased by that much? Assuming a median salary of £30k that’s £30bn of extra spending.
The government spends enough money. It just spends it badly.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
That's a huge flashing sign about the state of the nations finances. As mentioned before, household savings are already high and this would suggest they need to be higher still. And if you can't save, you're in for a miserable life.
Yet we have @TimS saying, quite plausibly, we save too much and should be spending.
He is quite persuasive when making the point too
It's not just spending money though. It's spending it on the right things.
Spending money on training and infrastructure that will make more money is good.
Spending it on lawyers to argue how many angels dance on the head of an HS2 sleeper rather less so.
Just as spending money repairing your house is good, putting it all on the 3.30 at Newmarket isn't (unless it's an outsider that wins at 100/1 of course).
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
That's a huge flashing sign about the state of the nations finances. As mentioned before, household savings are already high and this would suggest they need to be higher still. And if you can't save, you're in for a miserable life.
Yet we have @TimS saying, quite plausibly, we save too much and should be spending.
He is quite persuasive when making the point too
Collectively, that sounds about right.
Half the country is saving/accumulating cash too much and putting it where it isn't useful.
The other half can't save a penny- often because of the rents they are paying to people in the first half.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
Farage is planning to make a lot of current crimes legal.
Its the easy way to cut crime.
Whereas the Sultana Party will make currant crimes legal.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
I thought you were in the 'old people are overprioritised' camp?
I don't think it matters what camp I'm in. Not everybody has a massive pension and like it or lump it I will be at least partly reliant on the state pension in my old age. We are not talking about disquiet about a political stance I disapprove of, we are talking about having to sell my flat or not being able to eat healthily. Due to some bad decisions I had some bite-lip prolonged periods of not-enough-money some decades ago and it took a lot of time and effort to crawl out of it. I really was not expecting to be plunged back into it by a Labour government that has catastrophically forgotten how to govern, and I won't have the resilience of my earlier years at 68.
None of the main parties give a damn about that, as long as they can protect the triple lock for the current pensioners
I think so too, Think I’ve brought this up before that we're entering a multi-tiered age-gated benefits system. To those born before the 70s the world: a full state pension and more than likely a good DB scheme. To those after: 25% percent of their pension at age 68 a poor DC scheme and god forbid you can't wash your lower half cos' you ain't getting disability either.
I'd be all for pension changes if they affect every cohort equally.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
Everyone's started talking about Stanley Kubrick's 1975 film Barry Lyndon for some reason. There's a column about it in today's Times by James Marriot for example.
I have a friend who's been telling me for about twenty years that this is one of the most interesting films ever made, and also, more specifcally, one of the first to use natural lighting in a certain way. I should really get round to seeing it.
With modern digital cameras, filming movies by candlelight is pretty trivial stuff. Back in the days of celluloid, it was technically rather difficult, and this was the first time it was fully realised.
To do so Kubrick used three of the then ten existing superfast Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 lenses (developed a decade earlier for the Apollo program). Adapting the still camera lenses for cinema photography was quite the task - as was focusing them, since the depth of field for most of the scenes was about one inch.
Nerdy stuff.
The film was a bit boring, but that probably reflected the reality of 18th C life, too,
Very good nerdy stuff! All accurate. I hadn't heard that there were only 10 50mm Zeiss f.7 lenses around but why would I. Kodak were making a fast 500 ASA film at that time which you could push 2 stops so there wasn't much need for it. You should have met the late Wendy Watkins. He could have talked to you for hours about it.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
I thought you were in the 'old people are overprioritised' camp?
I don't think it matters what camp I'm in. Not everybody has a massive pension and like it or lump it I will be at least partly reliant on the state pension in my old age. We are not talking about disquiet about a political stance I disapprove of, we are talking about having to sell my flat or not being able to eat healthily. Due to some bad decisions I had some bite-lip prolonged periods of not-enough-money some decades ago and it took a lot of time and effort to crawl out of it. I really was not expecting to be plunged back into it by a Labour government that has catastrophically forgotten how to govern, and I won't have the resilience of my earlier years at 68.
On my 59th birthday I had every intention of working to age 65, the mandatory retirement age at my place of employment. But my father's condition deteriorated and I was obliged to take early retirement a few months before I was 60, the earliest age for normal retirement. Had those pension arrangements not been possible, I suppose my father would have had to be cared for in a residential or nursing home.
I'm thankful the financial provision for retirement was available. I’m very conscious that people in our situation nowadays will have much more difficulty making arrangements.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
In Q1 2010 ONS says there were 2.866 state employees. I chose that arbitrarily as the beginning of the last decade.
In Q1 2025 there were 4.02 million.
Has the value of the services provided by the government increased by that much? Assuming a median salary of £30k that’s £30bn of extra spending.
The government spends enough money. It just spends it badly.
I wonder whether something has changed in the way it's recorded.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
In Q1 2010 ONS says there were 2.866 state employees. I chose that arbitrarily as the beginning of the last decade.
In Q1 2025 there were 4.02 million.
Has the value of the services provided by the government increased by that much? Assuming a median salary of £30k that’s £30bn of extra spending.
The government spends enough money. It just spends it badly.
Firstly, I think £30k is very low as an average. Secondly, the absolute key is pensions. Most public sector employees are now getting more than 20% of their wages paid into pension schemes which frankly threaten the public finances more than any one single thing. Public sector headcount must get driven down to the levels Osborne managed and they need to be focused on what they are supposed to do rather than absurd gender politics, ridiculous over regulation, bizarre HR policies and an overwhelming bureaucratic mindset where somehow recording nonsense makes it meaningful, useful or anything other than pointless.
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
In your forties you have diseases that can be cured In your fifties you have diseases that can't be cured but have to be managed In your sixties you have diseases that can't be cured nor managed but you can be surgically adapted In your seventies you have diseases that can't be cured nor managed nor adapted but must be endured In your eighties they kill you.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
On what basis ? That the Israeli talking points it precisely pastes are verified by any other international source ?
You can have great faith in the Israeli government's view alone if you like, but it"s hardly a scientific process.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
That's a huge flashing sign about the state of the nations finances. As mentioned before, household savings are already high and this would suggest they need to be higher still. And if you can't save, you're in for a miserable life.
Yet we have @TimS saying, quite plausibly, we save too much and should be spending.
He is quite persuasive when making the point too
It's not just spending money though. It's spending it on the right things.
Spending money on training and infrastructure that will make more money is good.
Spending it on lawyers to argue how many angels dance on the head of an HS2 sleeper rather less so.
Just as spending money repairing your house is good, putting it all on the 3.30 at Newmarket isn't (unless it's an outsider that wins at 100/1 of course).
How about a civil servant in every shop and betting office to check on what you are spending to make sure its the 'correct' spending? Or just use AI to vet any online/credit card transaction where the computer says 'no' if spent unwisely?
To quote Trump "have two dolls instead of 30 dolls"
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
In Q1 2010 ONS says there were 2.866 state employees. I chose that arbitrarily as the beginning of the last decade.
In Q1 2025 there were 4.02 million.
Has the value of the services provided by the government increased by that much? Assuming a median salary of £30k that’s £30bn of extra spending.
The government spends enough money. It just spends it badly.
I wonder whether something has changed in the way it's recorded.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
I’m sure it’s just an unfortunate coincidence that GHF aid centres seem to be nexus points for death and destruction while their director is a leader in an evangelical cult that believes that the second coming will only happen after an extreme orgy of death and destruction in the Holy Land.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
That's a huge flashing sign about the state of the nations finances. As mentioned before, household savings are already high and this would suggest they need to be higher still. And if you can't save, you're in for a miserable life.
Yet we have @TimS saying, quite plausibly, we save too much and should be spending.
He is quite persuasive when making the point too
It's not just spending money though. It's spending it on the right things.
Spending money on training and infrastructure that will make more money is good.
Spending it on lawyers to argue how many angels dance on the head of an HS2 sleeper rather less so.
Just as spending money repairing your house is good, putting it all on the 3.30 at Newmarket isn't (unless it's an outsider that wins at 100/1 of course).
How about a civil servant in every shop and betting office to check on what you are spending to make sure its the 'correct' spending? Or just use AI to vet any online/credit card transaction where the computer says 'no' if spent unwisely?
To quote Trump "have two dolls instead of 30 dolls"
Er...given Trump's *unfortunate* behaviour with young models I am not sure that's a quotation I'd have used...
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
68 is the wrong age to start. Won't fly politically, nor does it meet the typical experience of modern retirement.
If you make the 25% rate from 63, then you suddenly get a lot of people in the 50-65 age range who may be in favour of such a change, or at least neutral to offset the lost votes of those facing immediate loss.
It depends when it is phased in. If it happens.
Presumably the review body is independent and she has given them a variety of options to look at and this may be one of them.
There is also the 10 year rule/protocol where they won’t change anything for anyone who has ten years or fewer to go to receive the pension.
It is not clear what the timescale to report back is either.
I wonder if this has been leaked so the reaction to it neuters it.
I think it makes sense. Many people have a phased retirement, taking part time jobs and draw from SIPP or DB or DC or any combination thereof.
It does stick in the throat a bit the triple lock is out of scope and pain is being pushed onto younger people to protect boomers who won’t have to take any pain.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
On what basis ? That the Israeli talking points it precisely pastes are verified by any other international source ?
You can have great faith in the Israeli government's view alone if you like, but it"s hardly a scientific process.
The GHF twitter feed seems genuine. Have you looked at it. But let's say you think it's all made up. That means you are privileging Hamas' account over all others. Is that a place you want to be.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
I thought you were in the 'old people are overprioritised' camp?
I don't think it matters what camp I'm in. Not everybody has a massive pension and like it or lump it I will be at least partly reliant on the state pension in my old age. We are not talking about disquiet about a political stance I disapprove of, we are talking about having to sell my flat or not being able to eat healthily. Due to some bad decisions I had some bite-lip prolonged periods of not-enough-money some decades ago and it took a lot of time and effort to crawl out of it. I really was not expecting to be plunged back into it by a Labour government that has catastrophically forgotten how to govern, and I won't have the resilience of my earlier years at 68.
None of the main parties give a damn about that, as long as they can protect the triple lock for the current pensioners
I think so too, Think I’ve brought this up before that we're entering a multi-tiered age-gated benefits system. To those born before the 70s the world: a full state pension and more than likely a good DB scheme. To those after: 25% percent of their pension at age 68 a poor DC scheme and god forbid you can't wash your lower half cos' you ain't getting disability either.
I'd be all for pension changes if they affect every cohort equally.
Just get rid of the triple lock. The state pension should be upgraded by CPI only. That will save some money particularly over the longer term. Other pensions are (generally) not uplifted by more than CPI. In many cases the uplifting is capped for private DB pensions and those relying on DC have no built in CPI uplift.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
That's a huge flashing sign about the state of the nations finances. As mentioned before, household savings are already high and this would suggest they need to be higher still. And if you can't save, you're in for a miserable life.
Yet we have @TimS saying, quite plausibly, we save too much and should be spending.
He is quite persuasive when making the point too
It's not just spending money though. It's spending it on the right things.
Spending money on training and infrastructure that will make more money is good.
Spending it on lawyers to argue how many angels dance on the head of an HS2 sleeper rather less so.
Just as spending money repairing your house is good, putting it all on the 3.30 at Newmarket isn't (unless it's an outsider that wins at 100/1 of course).
We’re talking about individuals here and so what if they spend it betting. It still gets into the wider economy.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
Here's the thing: if people don't feel safe, they don't go out. Tourism is reduced. People need to spend money on security, rather than on things that generate economic returns.
The return on spending on law and order, in terms of econimic activity (and therefore taxes) is probably better than on anything else, especially if - as now in the UK - there is endemic issues with shoplifting and low level petter crime.
Plus, of course, the criminal justice system is a tiny part of overall government spend.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
In Q1 2010 ONS says there were 2.866 state employees. I chose that arbitrarily as the beginning of the last decade.
In Q1 2025 there were 4.02 million.
Has the value of the services provided by the government increased by that much? Assuming a median salary of £30k that’s £30bn of extra spending.
The government spends enough money. It just spends it badly.
I wonder whether something has changed in the way it's recorded.
I'm guessing there may be a fact check somewhere explaining the details, but not seen an obvious one.
Does that include adjustment for quite a lot of organisations that used to be public sector in 2010 but now are not, e.g. the Canal and River Trust?
There's one for 'headcount' rather than FTE, which says it excludes the effect of 'major classifications', and that's 5,652,000 to 5,906,000.
There's tons of data, so I may be missing something, but 2,866,000 seems small given that the NHS and Schools would surely be not far off that figure on their own.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
68 is the wrong age to start. Won't fly politically, nor does it meet the typical experience of modern retirement.
If you make the 25% rate from 63, then you suddenly get a lot of people in the 50-65 age range who may be in favour of such a change, or at least neutral to offset the lost votes of those facing immediate loss.
It depends when it is phased in. If it happens.
Presumably the review body is independent and she has given them a variety of options to look at and this may be one of them.
There is also the 10 year rule/protocol where they won’t change anything for anyone who has ten years or fewer to go to receive the pension.
It is not clear what the timescale to report back is either.
I wonder if this has been leaked so the reaction to it neuters it.
I think it makes sense. Many people have a phased retirement, taking part time jobs and draw from SIPP or DB or DC or any combination thereof.
It does stick in the throat a bit the triple lock is out of scope and pain is being pushed onto younger people to protect boomers who won’t have to take any pain.
It likely is just one option being considered, given that the review was only announced today.
Still, like you say, the leak might just be to soften us up, and we'll be "grateful" for something less dramatic.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
We don't "know" but can make judgements on likelihood. It seems reasonable to assume that the side preventing any journalists from entering is far less likely to be telling the truth.
So Hamas is your go to golden source.
No, I have no golden source because the Israelis wont allow journalists in. That makes me particularly skeptical of whatever the Israelis claim, but it doesn't make me believe what Hamas say.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It's the last that's the biggest problem, particularly for the "low level" crimes that make people's lives a misery, like burglary and drug dealing.
A lot of the time the local plod know who the local scrotes are, but can't be bothered to go and round them up so they can tie up the court system for half a day only to get a few hours community service and be back nicking stuff the following night.
Zero tolerance policing, prosecution and sentencing, with a "three strikes and it's 10 years inside" rule would rapidly put most of these persistent offenders inside for the long term, and crime would fall off a cliff.
It wouldn't be cheap because prison is expensive, but in the long run the reduced cost of crime would pay for it.
Note, I'm making no claim any of this is an effective deterrent to criminals, nor yet hoping that prison will reform them. My calculation is simply that once locked up, their crime rate tends to zero until you let them out, therefore the easiest way to have low crime is to lock up all the criminals.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
Not enough people work
More will be working if they don’t get their full pension until 72.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
In Q1 2010 ONS says there were 2.866 state employees. I chose that arbitrarily as the beginning of the last decade.
In Q1 2025 there were 4.02 million.
Has the value of the services provided by the government increased by that much? Assuming a median salary of £30k that’s £30bn of extra spending.
The government spends enough money. It just spends it badly.
I'm assuming there's a rogue 'million' missing there?
It's a Full Time Equivalents number, generated by multiplying the total number of government employees by hours of productive work, and the adjusting for the total number of working hours in a year.
Congressional Republicans continue to enable this senile nonsense. It is getting dangerous.
Trump declares that Obama is guilty of treason: Barack Hussain Obama, have you heard of him? He is guilty. It’s not a question. This was treason. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1947687629048500321
It got dangerous in December 2020. It is post dangerous now.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
On what basis ? That the Israeli talking points it precisely pastes are verified by any other international source ?
You can have great faith in the Israeli government's view alone if you like, but it"s hardly a scientific process.
The GHF twitter feed seems genuine. Have you looked at it. But let's say you think it's all made up. That means you are privileging Hamas' account over all others. Is that a place you want to be.
I'm not really sure what you mean by genuine, there. It can be posted by someone who thinks it's true, in an organisation with a different office to the Isrseli government, and still essentially be a repaste of Israeli government press handouts.
We're going around in circles, here, as you're not accepting that the Guardian's report is sourced by anyone other than Hamas. Look at the sources for thr Guardian eport, again ; are Medecins sans Fromtieres , and the UN offices for Humanitarian Affairs in New York and Geneva, also part of Hamas ?
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It's the last that's the biggest problem, particularly for the "low level" crimes that make people's lives a misery, like burglary and drug dealing.
A lot of the time the local plod know who the local scrotes are, but can't be bothered to go and round them up so they can tie up the court system for half a day only to get a few hours community service and be back nicking stuff the following night.
Zero tolerance policing, prosecution and sentencing, with a "three strikes and it's 10 years inside" rule would rapidly put most of these persistent offenders inside for the long term, and crime would fall off a cliff.
It wouldn't be cheap because prison is expensive, but in the long run the reduced cost of crime would pay for it.
Note, I'm making no claim any of this is an effective deterrent to criminals, nor yet hoping that prison will reform them. My calculation is simply that once locked up, their crime rate tends to zero until you let them out, therefore the easiest way to have low crime is to lock up all the criminals.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefings, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
Aid agencies that have a history of corruption and a vested interest to work with Hamas against the GHF that defeats their business model, while you hate Israel.
Identify Medicins sans Frontieres' history of corruption.
On the other question, I have contempt for Netanyahu and his government rather than Israel as a whole, speaking personally.
A ridiculous story about Cherie Blair getting a 60% discount on designer clothes when she and Tony travelled abroad when he was PM. Don't the BBC realise that the designers would have given her the clothes for free or indeed have paid her to wear them? Are the BBC really so out of touch? I doubt the British public are.
A ridiculous story about Cherie Blair getting a 60% discount on designer clothes when she and Tony travelled abroad when he was PM. Don't the BBC realise that the designers would have given her the clothes for free or indeed have paid her to wear them? Are the BBC really so out of touch? I doubt the British public are.
Could she not just have got someone to buy them for her like Mrs Starmer?
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It merely requires us to fund xxx properly. I don’t want to pay any more tax.
There’s the unsquared circle, folks.
In Q1 2010 ONS says there were 2.866 state employees. I chose that arbitrarily as the beginning of the last decade.
In Q1 2025 there were 4.02 million.
Has the value of the services provided by the government increased by that much? Assuming a median salary of £30k that’s £30bn of extra spending.
The government spends enough money. It just spends it badly.
I'm assuming there's a rogue 'million' missing there?
It's a Full Time Equivalents number, generated by multiplying the total number of government employees by hours of productive work, and the adjusting for the total number of working hours in a year.
And I thought I was cynical about government productivity!
A ridiculous story about Cherie Blair getting a 60% discount on designer clothes when she and Tony travelled abroad when he was PM. Don't the BBC realise that the designers would have given her the clothes for free or indeed have paid her to wear them? Are the BBC really so out of touch? I doubt the British public are.
I think the question is not that they could get such things, it is should they. You are opening yourself up to issues as Starmer found out.
Mrs Sunak is a big lover of designer clothes apparently, she was offered loads of freebie / discounted clothes, but they had a policy of while he was PM not to take any of those offers. Now you can say well they are uber wealthy, but it was a thing they made known to all the fashion brands that they didn't want to open the door of any claims around this so would only pay full price.
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
I found as I got older, past mid fifties, in the corporate world you are viewed as rigid, inflexible and not open to change. Your experience is valued less.
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
A ridiculous story about Cherie Blair getting a 60% discount on designer clothes when she and Tony travelled abroad when he was PM. Don't the BBC realise that the designers would have given her the clothes for free or indeed have paid her to wear them? Are the BBC really so out of touch? I doubt the British public are.
It’s from the release from national archives. Cherie Blair received £46k of discount on about £70k of clothes and it was decided at first not to release/declare. The Blair’s paid off a chunk of the discount to avoid it having to be declared after discussions.
I posted this morning that the PM and partner should receive a large grant to be spent on clothes by British designers as a showcase however the story is factual whether you like it or not.
Would it be over simplistic to think that if Farage believes that a Reform government can cut crime in half, then his policy would be to have fewer prison places, not more?
I suppose the point is (i) you need to jail more people now to get crime down over the term of a government, so you need the places now even if you won't in four years; and (ii) you can repurpose the places as crime falls, either giving terms of imprisonment for less serious offences or for things like holding asylum seekers.
I mean, it's all obvious bollocks anyway, and the "halving crime" thing is plucked out of thin air. But presumably that's the argument.
I don't actually think it would be particularly hard to reduce crime significantly.
I don't think it requires some radical reshaping or our criminal justice system. I think it merely requires us to fund the police, lawyers and courts properly. So that people are more likely to get caught, prosecuted and punished.
It's the last that's the biggest problem, particularly for the "low level" crimes that make people's lives a misery, like burglary and drug dealing.
A lot of the time the local plod know who the local scrotes are, but can't be bothered to go and round them up so they can tie up the court system for half a day only to get a few hours community service and be back nicking stuff the following night.
Zero tolerance policing, prosecution and sentencing, with a "three strikes and it's 10 years inside" rule would rapidly put most of these persistent offenders inside for the long term, and crime would fall off a cliff.
It wouldn't be cheap because prison is expensive, but in the long run the reduced cost of crime would pay for it.
Note, I'm making no claim any of this is an effective deterrent to criminals, nor yet hoping that prison will reform them. My calculation is simply that once locked up, their crime rate tends to zero until you let them out, therefore the easiest way to have low crime is to lock up all the criminals.
Here's the thing: right now, if you were to commit a crime that was sufficiently serious for the Plot to really care, and it was incredibly obvious you were the perpatrator, well, it would still take years to come to trial, by which point the witnesses might have disappeared. So, you might as well wait it out, because there's a high chance that the trial won't ever happen.
And if you're a low level criminal, that got arrested for shoplifting, and then you got a trial date at Uxbridge Magistrates Court, well ... there's a high chance that Legal Aid won't be able to find a barrister who will represent you for the 65 quid they'll recieve (before costs) for turning up to represent you.
So, when you turn up at Court, the magistrates will note your lack of legal represenation and defer the trial to another date.
I think there's a tendency to rush straight for the 'we need harsher punishments' knob, when the biggest problem right now is that the whole process of getting people convicted has almost completely broken down.
Former Unite boss Len McCluskey enjoyed private jet flights and football tickets arranged by the firm building a multi-million pound hotel for the union, according to an internal report.
Flanagan Group, which is run by friends of Mr McCluskey, overcharged Unite by at least £30m for the Birmingham hotel and conference centre project, the Unite report says., external
It also found Mr McCluskey "overruled" advice from staff and the union's lawyers in signing the construction contract with Flanagan Group.
Unite's report said the private jet flights and football tickets were "consistently organised and paid for by" the Flanagan Group and there is "no indication" Mr McCluskey later reimbursed them.
Mr McCluskey's lawyers told the BBC he paid for his own travel in full, and, to his recollection, always paid the cost of his football tickets. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o
I was going to say with that record he should go into politics, but of course being a union boss is being a politician already.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reportedly signed law that curtails independence of anti-corruption bodies by forcing them to coordinate decisions with Prosecutor General’s Office
I believe this is the first viral public call for an antigovernment protest in Kyiv since the start of Russia's full-scale war. And it's from a soldier: "Friends, let's gather for the action and defend what we've built over the last decade. We're meeting at 20:00 on the square near the Ivan Franko Theater. It's the closest available place to the President's Office. So, I hope we'll be visible from their windows." https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1947687034421944371
Hard to make positive steps while at war, and easy to justify to oneself such moves are ok as a result.
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
I found as I got older, past mid fifties, in the corporate world you are viewed as rigid, inflexible and not open to change. Your experience is valued less.
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
You missed “stopping me from being promoted into your job”.
A ridiculous story about Cherie Blair getting a 60% discount on designer clothes when she and Tony travelled abroad when he was PM. Don't the BBC realise that the designers would have given her the clothes for free or indeed have paid her to wear them? Are the BBC really so out of touch? I doubt the British public are.
Could she not just have got someone to buy them for her like Mrs Starmer?
Good Evening
And don't forget Keir's clothes and even glasses
It simply does not look right, certainly to the public who buy their own clothes (and glasses)
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
That's a huge flashing sign about the state of the nations finances. As mentioned before, household savings are already high and this would suggest they need to be higher still. And if you can't save, you're in for a miserable life.
Yet we have @TimS saying, quite plausibly, we save too much and should be spending.
He is quite persuasive when making the point too
Isn't all saving (unless you stick fivers in a sock) someone else's spending? And if it isn't, what is it?
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
I found as I got older, past mid fifties, in the corporate world you are viewed as rigid, inflexible and not open to change. Your experience is valued less.
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
I can see that to a degree. The views of youth can be ignored or acquired in token fashion much of the time, sure, but there is also some fetishisation of it. Likewise, you need outside views or ability to change sometimes to get things done, but if you assume that approach is always going to work you are wrong, and even when it is right assuming older, more experienced people will automatically fight it or not be up for it is often wrong.
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
I found as I got older, past mid fifties, in the corporate world you are viewed as rigid, inflexible and not open to change. Your experience is valued less.
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
You missed “stopping me from being promoted into your job”.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I'm afraid the whole world have now taken a view. You need to listen to no others than British medics one of who was in tears on TV last night. The tide turned decisively when Theroux did his program on the settlers and almost overnight we saw the Israelis in a different light. It's difficult now to view those food queues and not wonder what it must feel like to queue for food from people who treat you like cattle and care not whether you live or die. If they had lined up a hundred puppies and shot them they couldn't make themselves look less inhuman
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
I found as I got older, past mid fifties, in the corporate world you are viewed as rigid, inflexible and not open to change. Your experience is valued less.
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
I can see that to a degree. The views of youth can be ignored or acquired in token fashion much of the time, sure, but there is also some fetishisation of it. Likewise, you need outside views or ability to change sometimes to get things done, but if you assume that approach is always going to work you are wrong, and even when it is right assuming older, more experienced people will automatically fight it or not be up for it is often wrong.
It’s more for the the stereotype that the older you are the less flexible you are and more set in your ways. Which is as bad as the other view that young people are green and know nothing and should keep,their thoughts to themselves
I worked with a guy at Calsonic who said he would never employ anyone to his team who had no mortgage or rent as he felt having both made you more committed. It’s those sort of perceptions.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I'm afraid the whole world have now taken a view. You need to listen to no others than British medics one of who was in tears on TV last night. The tide turned decisively when Theroux did his program on the settlers and almost overnight we saw the Israelis in a different light. It's difficult now to view those food queues and not wonder what it must feel like to queue for food from people who treat you like cattle and care not whether you live or die. If they had lined up a hundred puppies and shot them they couldn't make themselves look less inhuman
The whole world clearly hasn't taken a view, as shown by the fact it's still fairly 50/50 on here.
Former Unite boss Len McCluskey enjoyed private jet flights and football tickets arranged by the firm building a multi-million pound hotel for the union, according to an internal report.
Flanagan Group, which is run by friends of Mr McCluskey, overcharged Unite by at least £30m for the Birmingham hotel and conference centre project, the Unite report says., external
It also found Mr McCluskey "overruled" advice from staff and the union's lawyers in signing the construction contract with Flanagan Group.
Unite's report said the private jet flights and football tickets were "consistently organised and paid for by" the Flanagan Group and there is "no indication" Mr McCluskey later reimbursed them.
Mr McCluskey's lawyers told the BBC he paid for his own travel in full, and, to his recollection, always paid the cost of his football tickets. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o
I was going to say with that record he should go into politics, but of course being a union boss is being a politician already.
The union face of Corbynism ladies and gentlemen. Ensuring best value for members subs.
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
I found as I got older, past mid fifties, in the corporate world you are viewed as rigid, inflexible and not open to change. Your experience is valued less.
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
I can see that to a degree. The views of youth can be ignored or acquired in token fashion much of the time, sure, but there is also some fetishisation of it. Likewise, you need outside views or ability to change sometimes to get things done, but if you assume that approach is always going to work you are wrong, and even when it is right assuming older, more experienced people will automatically fight it or not be up for it is often wrong.
One of Parkinson's subsiduary laws is also relevant here, though.
Paraphrasing, whoever is at the top needs to (somehow) be got to retire before they are really ready to go. Not because of the quality of their work, but because otherwise their juniors will go mad waiting for the opportunity. In short, be grateful for your go on the pony, but let the people waiting in the queue have a go as well.
Putting all that together points to the need for a role of greybeard/guru/wizard. Someone who is around, knows stuff because they have seen stuff, is listened to, but doesn't actually sit in the big chair, and accepts that the person in the big chair has the final call.
Outside some very specific niches (emeritus academics spring to mind), there aren't may organisations that can cope with that. Things have to be top-down, and it's either up or out. And CN Parkinson doesn't explain how to ease people into semi-retired gurudom. Of course he doesn't.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I have been pro Israel, and massively in support of the Jewish community in UK - I was brought up in a very Jewish part of London - all my life and I think both sides have committed (in ordinary, not international law language, as IANAE) war crimes. I think Hamas would commit many more war crimes if they could but operate under limitations.
I suppose where I differ from many is that it seems to me comprehensible why both sides have done so or are doing so. In just the same way I think Britain committed war crimes (in ordinary not legal language) in WWII. And I think it is comprehensible why we did. The human condition is not always great.
I am not going to survive that. That's not going to work. I am moving from "I don't like this government" to "I will vote for anybody who will throw it out".
I thought you were in the 'old people are overprioritised' camp?
I don't think it matters what camp I'm in. Not everybody has a massive pension and like it or lump it I will be at least partly reliant on the state pension in my old age. We are not talking about disquiet about a political stance I disapprove of, we are talking about having to sell my flat or not being able to eat healthily. Due to some bad decisions I had some bite-lip prolonged periods of not-enough-money some decades ago and it took a lot of time and effort to crawl out of it. I really was not expecting to be plunged back into it by a Labour government that has catastrophically forgotten how to govern, and I won't have the resilience of my earlier years at 68.
This would amount to a reduction in the value of the state pension. Starmer would not allow this surely? There would have to be protection against this for people over a certain age now, say 55 (58 tops), so only those younger than this now would need to allow for it in their retirement financial plans. There would be no saving to the exchequer for many years. Not going to happen.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I'm afraid the whole world have now taken a view. You need to listen to no others than British medics one of who was in tears on TV last night. The tide turned decisively when Theroux did his program on the settlers and almost overnight we saw the Israelis in a different light. It's difficult now to view those food queues and not wonder what it must feel like to queue for food from people who treat you like cattle and care not whether you live or die. If they had lined up a hundred puppies and shot them they couldn't make themselves look less inhuman
The whole world clearly hasn't taken a view, as shown by the fact it's still fairly 50/50 on here.
I rarely comment on Gaza as the indisputable horror of it all makes one despair, but it seems neither Israel or Hamas will stop, and the horrors will continue until they sit down and agree to a complete truce and release of prisoners
I know this is something @Roger and many others feel very strongly about, but unfortunately the 'whole world' has not taken a view, and it continues with no end in sight
I do wonder that with the full horrors and suffering in both Gaza and Ukraine featuring in every news broadcast, that the horrors are too much to bear and viewers just switch off the news and change to sport or tv shows or other media
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I have been pro Israel, and massively in support of the Jewish community in UK - I was brought up in a very Jewish part of London - all my life and I think both sides have committed (in ordinary, not international law language, as IANAE) war crimes. I think Hamas would commit many more war crimes if they could but operate under limitations.
I suppose where I differ from many is that it seems to me comprehensible why both sides have done so or are doing so. In just the same way I think Britain committed war crimes (in ordinary not legal language) in WWII. And I think it is comprehensible why we did. The human condition is not always great.
I think the issue at this moment is it's blindingly obvious why the Israelis are continuing to pound Gaza.
But it's not a good enough reason.
Rescuing hostages? Degrading Hamas? Yes, valid. Could have been done much more carefully, but it was understandable.
Saving the skin of one of the nastiest Fascists on the planet, not forgetting Trump, Putin, Xi, Modi and Duterte? No way is that a good enough reason for anything.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I'm afraid the whole world have now taken a view. You need to listen to no others than British medics one of who was in tears on TV last night. The tide turned decisively when Theroux did his program on the settlers and almost overnight we saw the Israelis in a different light. It's difficult now to view those food queues and not wonder what it must feel like to queue for food from people who treat you like cattle and care not whether you live or die. If they had lined up a hundred puppies and shot them they couldn't make themselves look less inhuman
The whole world clearly hasn't taken a view, as shown by the fact it's still fairly 50/50 on here.
I rarely comment on Gaza as the indisputable horror of it all makes one despair, but it seems neither Israel or Hamas will stop, and the horrors will continue until they sit down and agree to a complete truce and release of prisoners
I know this is something @Roger and others feel very strongly about, but unfortunately the 'whole world' has not taken a view, and it continues with no end in sight
I do wonder that with the full horrors and suffering in both Gaza and Ukraine featuring in every news broadcast, that the horrors are too much to bear and viewers just switch off the news and changed to sport or tv shows or other media
People can only take so much, with the best will in the world people will tune out and move on (which some bad people rely on of course) purely as mental defence.
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
I found as I got older, past mid fifties, in the corporate world you are viewed as rigid, inflexible and not open to change. Your experience is valued less.
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
I can see that to a degree. The views of youth can be ignored or acquired in token fashion much of the time, sure, but there is also some fetishisation of it. Likewise, you need outside views or ability to change sometimes to get things done, but if you assume that approach is always going to work you are wrong, and even when it is right assuming older, more experienced people will automatically fight it or not be up for it is often wrong.
One of Parkinson's subsiduary laws is also relevant here, though.
Paraphrasing, whoever is at the top needs to (somehow) be got to retire before they are really ready to go. Not because of the quality of their work, but because otherwise their juniors will go mad waiting for the opportunity. In short, be grateful for your go on the pony, but let the people waiting in the queue have a go as well.
Putting all that together points to the need for a role of greybeard/guru/wizard. Someone who is around, knows stuff because they have seen stuff, is listened to, but doesn't actually sit in the big chair, and accepts that the person in the big chair has the final call.
Outside some very specific niches (emeritus academics spring to mind), there aren't may organisations that can cope with that. Things have to be top-down, and it's either up or out. And CN Parkinson doesn't explain how to ease people into semi-retired gurudom. Of course he doesn't.
Spot on. I am lucky; retired at 68 but can still be useful in my field without having to occupy anyone's seat and without having any significant authority.
What I would add is that sometime in the 60s it fairly suddenly took me by surprise that I couldn't any longer do all this full time and full on. I didn't expect it to be so fast.
All these people who are 40 something saying that retirement can wait till you are 115 next birthday need to stop and check things out.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I have been pro Israel, and massively in support of the Jewish community in UK - I was brought up in a very Jewish part of London - all my life and I think both sides have committed (in ordinary, not international law language, as IANAE) war crimes. I think Hamas would commit many more war crimes if they could but operate under limitations.
I suppose where I differ from many is that it seems to me comprehensible why both sides have done so or are doing so. In just the same way I think Britain committed war crimes (in ordinary not legal language) in WWII. And I think it is comprehensible why we did. The human condition is not always great.
Every army in history has committed war crimes, the degree of those crimes depends on whether soldiers are restrained or not by their commanders and their politicians. The worst examples are when they’re positively encouraged to excesses by their leaders which I’m afraid is the case with Hamas and the IDF.
I think I am definitely in the minority that as a work-acholic and somebody who enjoys their work, I have no intention of retiring at 60 odd.
I found as I got older, past mid fifties, in the corporate world you are viewed as rigid, inflexible and not open to change. Your experience is valued less.
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
I can see that to a degree. The views of youth can be ignored or acquired in token fashion much of the time, sure, but there is also some fetishisation of it. Likewise, you need outside views or ability to change sometimes to get things done, but if you assume that approach is always going to work you are wrong, and even when it is right assuming older, more experienced people will automatically fight it or not be up for it is often wrong.
One of Parkinson's subsiduary laws is also relevant here, though.
Paraphrasing, whoever is at the top needs to (somehow) be got to retire before they are really ready to go. Not because of the quality of their work, but because otherwise their juniors will go mad waiting for the opportunity. In short, be grateful for your go on the pony, but let the people waiting in the queue have a go as well.
Putting all that together points to the need for a role of greybeard/guru/wizard. Someone who is around, knows stuff because they have seen stuff, is listened to, but doesn't actually sit in the big chair, and accepts that the person in the big chair has the final call.
Outside some very specific niches (emeritus academics spring to mind), there aren't may organisations that can cope with that. Things have to be top-down, and it's either up or out. And CN Parkinson doesn't explain how to ease people into semi-retired gurudom. Of course he doesn't.
This is where engaging with people and proper succession planning/bubble assignments/career paths come in.
The last corporation I was at had all this. It was just treated as a tick box excercise to show head office it was done.
It was never used to drive any strategic improvement in HR.
As neither of us is in Gaza we'll just have to flip a coin as to who is telling porkies.
That is not a rebuttal of the article.
Just Israeli governmental talking points.
From Topping? Surely not.
How do you know which version is true.
I would look at the comparative familiarity of fhe accounts, just to start with. The GHF thread looks almost identical to two years of Israeli press briefing, whereas the Guardian's report seems to include a lot of newer and more disparate details and sources of information, including by several aid agencies.
ie you have no idea.
Two year old repastes will be more inaccurate ; hence I have a good idea of the comparison, which was your question.
The GHF hasn't been distributing food for two years. But good to see you think Hamas is a trusted source. And the UN which has likely had to make "accommodation" to operate in Gaza.
But Hamas is clearly far from the only source of the Guardian report, whereas there's no evidence of ""GHF" contradicting the claims of the Israeli government at any time.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
As I said, you have no idea of what is actually going on. The GHF sounds perfectly plausible to me.
Listen to Jeremy Bowen on now. I haven't seen him as angry before. Some of the pictures of starvation would require a prosthetics department well out of the reach of any filmmakers in Gaza. You seem to have something of a minority view
There is no unbiased source of any view. Hamas says it's Israel, Israel says we're looking at it.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
I have been pro Israel, and massively in support of the Jewish community in UK - I was brought up in a very Jewish part of London - all my life and I think both sides have committed (in ordinary, not international law language, as IANAE) war crimes. I think Hamas would commit many more war crimes if they could but operate under limitations.
I suppose where I differ from many is that it seems to me comprehensible why both sides have done so or are doing so. In just the same way I think Britain committed war crimes (in ordinary not legal language) in WWII. And I think it is comprehensible why we did. The human condition is not always great.
Every army in history has committed war crimes, the degree of those crimes depends on whether soldiers are restrained or not by their commanders and their politicians. The worst examples are when they’re positively encouraged to excesses by their leaders which I’m afraid is the case with Hamas and the IDF.
I think it was Jeremy Bowen who commented during the second invasion of Ukraine that all sides will commit war crimes during conflict, but some nations like Russia make it a deliberate part of their plans and strategies, and so it's a matter of frequency, intent, and how nations respond to it when it happens, rather than assuming it will never happen.
Comments
1) burn the guilty
2) if anyone on “our” side is guilty, fuck ‘em
3) if it clears out the useless on “our” side, great
4) best of all, Trump.
Need a bit more flesh on the bones does Craig.
Many of the points in the GHF thread are literally identical to Israeli government press conferences of 2023.
He is quite persuasive when making the point too
Spending money on training and infrastructure that will make more money is good.
Spending it on lawyers to argue how many angels dance on the head of an HS2 sleeper rather less so.
Just as spending money repairing your house is good, putting it all on the 3.30 at Newmarket isn't (unless it's an outsider that wins at 100/1 of course).
Half the country is saving/accumulating cash too much and putting it where it isn't useful.
The other half can't save a penny- often because of the rents they are paying to people in the first half.
I'd be all for pension changes if they affect every cohort equally.
The GHF thread, on the other hand, is essentially just a cut and paste of countiess interviews given by ministers ovef the lasr two years when Israel itself was supposed to be managimg aid, with "Israel" substituted for the name of the organisation.
I'm thankful the financial provision for retirement was available. I’m very conscious that people in our situation nowadays will have much more difficulty making arrangements.
Those stats appear to be from here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel
But if you follow the link right next to the graph, the data shows a very small drop: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/march2025
Public Sector full time equivalent:
2010 5,277,000
2025 5,200,000
I'm guessing there may be a fact check somewhere explaining the details, but not seen an obvious one.
In your fifties you have diseases that can't be cured but have to be managed
In your sixties you have diseases that can't be cured nor managed but you can be surgically adapted
In your seventies you have diseases that can't be cured nor managed nor adapted but must be endured
In your eighties they kill you.
You can have great faith in the Israeli government's view alone if you like, but it"s hardly a scientific process.
To quote Trump "have two dolls instead of 30 dolls"
Presumably the review body is independent and she has given them a variety of options to look at and this may be one of them.
There is also the 10 year rule/protocol where they won’t change anything for anyone who has ten years or fewer to go to receive the pension.
It is not clear what the timescale to report back is either.
I wonder if this has been leaked so the reaction to it neuters it.
I think it makes sense. Many people have a phased retirement, taking part time jobs and draw from SIPP or DB or DC or any combination thereof.
It does stick in the throat a bit the triple lock is out of scope and pain is being pushed onto younger people to protect boomers who won’t have to take any pain.
Be brave Rachel! Not sure it's going to happen.
It’s not sitting in a bank.
The return on spending on law and order, in terms of econimic activity (and therefore taxes) is probably better than on anything else, especially if - as now in the UK - there is endemic issues with shoplifting and low level petter crime.
Plus, of course, the criminal justice system is a tiny part of overall government spend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/cly1e4x4gyet#Scorecard
There's tons of data, so I may be missing something, but 2,866,000 seems small given that the NHS and Schools would surely be not far off that figure on their own.
Bowen's (and many on PB's) view is that without question Hamas' account, and those who rely on Hamas, should be believed.
Still, like you say, the leak might just be to soften us up, and we'll be "grateful" for something less dramatic.
A lot of the time the local plod know who the local scrotes are, but can't be bothered to go and round them up so they can tie up the court system for half a day only to get a few hours community service and be back nicking stuff the following night.
Zero tolerance policing, prosecution and sentencing, with a "three strikes and it's 10 years inside" rule would rapidly put most of these persistent offenders inside for the long term, and crime would fall off a cliff.
It wouldn't be cheap because prison is expensive, but in the long run the reduced cost of crime would pay for it.
Note, I'm making no claim any of this is an effective deterrent to criminals, nor yet hoping that prison will reform them. My calculation is simply that once locked up, their crime rate tends to zero until you let them out, therefore the easiest way to have low crime is to lock up all the criminals.
We're going around in circles, here, as you're not accepting that the Guardian's report is sourced by anyone other than Hamas. Look at the sources for thr Guardian eport, again ; are Medecins sans Fromtieres , and the UN offices for Humanitarian Affairs in New York and Geneva, also part of Hamas ?
On the other question, I have contempt for Netanyahu and his government rather than Israel as a whole, speaking personally.
At 65, I'm now working harder than ever. Working on two projects, each potentially of considerable significance. Enough to keep me involved.
Mrs Sunak is a big lover of designer clothes apparently, she was offered loads of freebie / discounted clothes, but they had a policy of while he was PM not to take any of those offers. Now you can say well they are uber wealthy, but it was a thing they made known to all the fashion brands that they didn't want to open the door of any claims around this so would only pay full price.
Just days after the last gig
I am not unique.
If the govt wants older people to remain in the workplace, and not just shelf stacking or handing out baskets in B&Q, then they need to be valued.
I posted this morning that the PM and partner should receive a large grant to be spent on clothes by British designers as a showcase however the story is factual whether you like it or not.
And if you're a low level criminal, that got arrested for shoplifting, and then you got a trial date at Uxbridge Magistrates Court, well ... there's a high chance that Legal Aid won't be able to find a barrister who will represent you for the 65 quid they'll recieve (before costs) for turning up to represent you.
So, when you turn up at Court, the magistrates will note your lack of legal represenation and defer the trial to another date.
I think there's a tendency to rush straight for the 'we need harsher punishments' knob, when the biggest problem right now is that the whole process of getting people convicted has almost completely broken down.
Former Unite boss Len McCluskey enjoyed private jet flights and football tickets arranged by the firm building a multi-million pound hotel for the union, according to an internal report.
Flanagan Group, which is run by friends of Mr McCluskey, overcharged Unite by at least £30m for the Birmingham hotel and conference centre project, the Unite report says., external
It also found Mr McCluskey "overruled" advice from staff and the union's lawyers in signing the construction contract with Flanagan Group.
Unite's report said the private jet flights and football tickets were "consistently organised and paid for by" the Flanagan Group and there is "no indication" Mr McCluskey later reimbursed them.
Mr McCluskey's lawyers told the BBC he paid for his own travel in full, and, to his recollection, always paid the cost of his football tickets.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o
I was going to say with that record he should go into politics, but of course being a union boss is being a politician already.
Hoping we don't learn that Liz Truss visited Ozzy after the gig for a chat and a handshake.
That’s playing Villa Park for you !!
RIP Ozzy
He lived a life.
https://x.com/bbcbreakfast/status/1947722550844244246?s=61
And don't forget Keir's clothes and even glasses
It simply does not look right, certainly to the public who buy their own clothes (and glasses)
I worked with a guy at Calsonic who said he would never employ anyone to his team who had no mortgage or rent as he felt having both made you more committed. It’s those sort of perceptions.
Two weeks after his farewell concert.
I'd rank Ozzy as one of the top 100 most influential people in music of the past 70 years.
You looked on their works,... and despaired!
Paraphrasing, whoever is at the top needs to (somehow) be got to retire before they are really ready to go. Not because of the quality of their work, but because otherwise their juniors will go mad waiting for the opportunity. In short, be grateful for your go on the pony, but let the people waiting in the queue have a go as well.
Putting all that together points to the need for a role of greybeard/guru/wizard. Someone who is around, knows stuff because they have seen stuff, is listened to, but doesn't actually sit in the big chair, and accepts that the person in the big chair has the final call.
Outside some very specific niches (emeritus academics spring to mind), there aren't may organisations that can cope with that. Things have to be top-down, and it's either up or out. And CN Parkinson doesn't explain how to ease people into semi-retired gurudom. Of course he doesn't.
I suppose where I differ from many is that it seems to me comprehensible why both sides have done so or are doing so. In just the same way I think Britain committed war crimes (in ordinary not legal language) in WWII. And I think it is comprehensible why we did. The human condition is not always great.
Still, what way to bow out. Even better than Lemmy's Finnish milk advert.
(https://youtu.be/ODKAdOjx83Q?si=JrQ39C0NaS9K8rCW)
Just listen to this. Three minutes of pop perfection.
https://youtu.be/RyNuUQs8w4Y?si=JnlqzyWaNoCb_-v-
I know this is something @Roger and many others feel very strongly about, but unfortunately the 'whole world' has not taken a view, and it continues with no end in sight
I do wonder that with the full horrors and suffering in both Gaza and Ukraine featuring in every news broadcast, that the horrors are too much to bear and viewers just switch off the news and change to sport or tv shows or other media
But it's not a good enough reason.
Rescuing hostages? Degrading Hamas? Yes, valid. Could have been done much more carefully, but it was understandable.
Saving the skin of one of the nastiest Fascists on the planet, not forgetting Trump, Putin, Xi, Modi and Duterte? No way is that a good enough reason for anything.
What I would add is that sometime in the 60s it fairly suddenly took me by surprise that I couldn't any longer do all this full time and full on. I didn't expect it to be so fast.
All these people who are 40 something saying that retirement can wait till you are 115 next birthday need to stop and check things out.
The last corporation I was at had all this. It was just treated as a tick box excercise to show head office it was done.
It was never used to drive any strategic improvement in HR.