I note the virtually unanimous condemnation of the OSA on here, and indeed have many reservations myself. However, in all the commentary I've yet to read of any practical solutions to the problem of online harm - unless, of course, one thinks there isn't a problem.
To give just one example. It's very easy for kids to access really hard-core pornography online (it's not about 'naked ladies and boobies', as some have fatuously claimed). And if you think, as I do, that such material can damage some kids' perception of women and sex, and also contributes to an incel culture that demeans women and is a potential danger to them, it might be a good idea to make such access harder. But how? I don't believe for a minute that 'parents' is the answer. It's also worth remembering that some of the impetus for the OSA came from the Molly Russell case. Are we okay with kids like her being able to access so much stuff about suicide so easily?
Yes; but does it achieve its goal?
And unless you think the goal is to enrich the owners of VPN services, then I suspect it doesn't
Those people who wish to see porn (of any kind) or to find information about suicide, will simply avoid the issue by using VPNs, or will use sites that are criminal and which don't care about UK regulation.
What exactly has been gained by the regulation other than adding a whole bunch of hoops, that otherwise law-abiding people have to jump through?
The cynic within me wonders if the plan is actually to ban VPNs (governments never like the population using strong encryption very much) and the whole point of the OSA is to provide a justification for banning VPNs - "won't somebody think of the children".
The only flaw in this argument is that it ascribes a level of devious cunning to Tory ministers usually considered unable to find their way out of a wet paper bag unaided. But possibly their civil service mandarins were the ones playing the long(er) game.
And banning VPNs would go a long way to end working from home
Presumably they would ban private VPN providers, rather than attempting to ban VPNs altogether.
Although people with a modicum of tech ability can already use alternatives like Tor or indeed rolling their own VPN.
(Personally, I use Tailscale everywhere, which means if I am using a "VPN", I'm using the IP address of my London flat.)
It won't be 'private' VPN's they go after. It will be 'unregulated' VPNs. Those dodgy ones. The ones... who aren't allowing backdoors and log requests.
And who'd want to use one of those? Baddies - that's who. Good people - people with legitimate business - of whom there are many! - would use a regulated VPN service."
** Members interest: Was flown to Bali by the "We love regulation" VPN providers association, accommodation paid for by M.Moneypenny & Co.
The case isn’t about whether Peggie made a few off colour jokes on a WhatsApp group. It’s about single sex spaces and men going into them. It’s about NHS fife conspiring against Peggie because she is gender critical. It’s about Upton falsifying electronic notes after the alleged incident to make Peggie look bad (the interpretation of the computer expert). That Peggie might find Upton ‘weird’ is irrelevant.
A few off colour(sic) jokes? At least I now know what your benchmark is.
The folk saying she's a heroine and an inspiration with grace, class and a strong moral backbone must feel a bit dumb.
How clean is your WhatsApp?
Don't think I've 'hilariously' suggested that I'd put bacon through the letterbox of a newly built mosque, but my memory isn't what it used to be.
It is striking how often right wing culture warriors turn out to be scumbags on a personal level.
You believe Peggie is a right wing culture warrior? Wow. And scimbag for not wanting to get undressed with a six foot man in the changing room? A man with a penis and testicles? Unbelievable
Why would you give somebody a free pass on racist rhetoric just because you agree with their stance on something else?
Because the real world is complex. People say stuff. People believe stuff. You may not realise how many people in the U.K. think fully veiled women are a bad thing. And wonder if they are forced to show their faces at passport control. And people make bad taste jokes on WhatsApp all the time. As soon as their is a disaster, someone will be making a joke.
Do you believe that Peggie would treat Pakistani patient differently to a Scottish one because she made some racist jokes?
Masterchef. One presenter ditched for off-colour jokes; the other for use of a racist slur. If that is the standard...
At least Gregg wasn’t pretending to be a lady when he got his old chap out.
The complaint was not that Gregg's old chap was out but it was the only part that was in. That said, I vaguely recall a naked football match for Comic Relief or one of the other telethons back in the day so standards do change. (Are they still called telethons?)
There's a slight difference between Wallace's unwelcome behaviour to junior female staff members, and a stunt with consent.
That's all nonsense, it's biology not fantasy that matters. In 1000 years the fossilised remains of a transgender will be dug up and the archeologists of that era will say "this man died a thousand years ago". There is nothing in the world that will change that and the government has stopped fighting reality.
In 1000 years technology will mean people can have whatever body they want and children learning history will laugh at the foolish ancients who screamed and raged that gender is immutable, like they'll laugh at the idea people once thought the Sun orbited the Earth.
You've been reading the Iain Banks' Culture novels again, haven't you?
(Thinking about it; it's hilarious that Musk named his recovery vessels after spaceships from that series; and yet the series also emphasises the mutability of gender in a world where technology is as near to magic as makes no difference.)
People were also often blizzed out on drugs literally hardwired into their bodies to produce, and most of the stories involved people on the fringes of the society who, consciously or otherwise, couldn't really get with the programme.
I've maintained before I think it was a more dystopic setting than the author intended or realised it to be.
I note the virtually unanimous condemnation of the OSA on here, and indeed have many reservations myself. However, in all the commentary I've yet to read of any practical solutions to the problem of online harm - unless, of course, one thinks there isn't a problem.
To give just one example. It's very easy for kids to access really hard-core pornography online (it's not about 'naked ladies and boobies', as some have fatuously claimed). And if you think, as I do, that such material can damage some kids' perception of women and sex, and also contributes to an incel culture that demeans women and is a potential danger to them, it might be a good idea to make such access harder. But how? I don't believe for a minute that 'parents' is the answer. It's also worth remembering that some of the impetus for the OSA came from the Molly Russell case. Are we okay with kids like her being able to access so much stuff about suicide so easily?
Yes; but does it achieve its goal?
And unless you think the goal is to enrich the owners of VPN services, then I suspect it doesn't
Those people who wish to see porn (of any kind) or to find information about suicide, will simply avoid the issue by using VPNs, or will use sites that are criminal and which don't care about UK regulation.
What exactly has been gained by the regulation other than adding a whole bunch of hoops, that otherwise law-abiding people have to jump through?
The cynic within me wonders if the plan is actually to ban VPNs (governments never like the population using strong encryption very much) and the whole point of the OSA is to provide a justification for banning VPNs - "won't somebody think of the children".
The only flaw in this argument is that it ascribes a level of devious cunning to Tory ministers usually considered unable to find their way out of a wet paper bag unaided. But possibly their civil service mandarins were the ones playing the long(er) game.
And banning VPNs would go a long way to end working from home
Presumably they would ban private VPN providers, rather than attempting to ban VPNs altogether.
Although people with a modicum of tech ability can already use alternatives like Tor or indeed rolling their own VPN.
(Personally, I use Tailscale everywhere, which means if I am using a "VPN", I'm using the IP address of my London flat.)
I feel his pain. It affects the middle-aged and also the young as graduate and mid-level jobs vanish. And I happen to know the young woman who served me in the fish and chip shop this afternoon, whose birthday was last week, has a degree; I don't suppose fish and chips was her or her mother's plan A when waving her off to college but at least she earns an honest bob and demonstrates a clear work ethic that will be ignored by hiring managers.
It is interesting that the Telegraph traces this phenomenon back to deindustrialisation in the 1980s. It is not just AI or increased employment costs but all these things, and also the increased sale of anything not nailed down which means the good jobs (and the profits) flow overseas.
ETA this is also a reason for thinking the government's concern over forcing people off benefits is at best misguided. There just aren't enough jobs around, so better for employer and employee that they go to those who actually want them.
I'm not sure about other sectors - but in education-IT-land we're not-not hiring because of AI. It's because for every one post we are seeing 50-100 identical candidates. All churned out by various boot-camps and masters programmes. "I have skills in X and Y".
Yep - you and the other identical 99 candidates.
Whether because of the economic incentives ~4yrs ago, or whether X and Y were the only things your lecturers or trainers knew - no idea. But it's very noticeable at the hiring end of the funnel - that our current supply chain is problematic.
(Quite different from the likes of Amazon who have a combination of over-hiring, and massive city/state tax-breaks to try and keep).
Surely the bots are writing their applications and cvs. Hence the identicality
A fair percentage of them - for sure. Getting on for 70% just now. Thankfully most of those are spotted by my "was this written by an AI bot" filter. There are so many applicants who even submit cover letters (and I do truly mean this literally) containing "Certainly! I can help you write a cover letter!" or "I am excited to apply for the post of [REPLACE WITH POST NAME] at [REPLACE WITH COMPANY NAME]". The last post I was on the interview panel for - those must have accounted for 30% or more.
But aside from the low-effort candidates, the degree/boot-camp programmes are all geared to the same tickboxes. 'Java' - tick. 'Python' - tick. Nothing specific, nothing interesting. Always the same 'springboot with a react front end'.
It's getting to the stage of "oh, you even know what a raspberry pi is?! hired!" in geek terms.
Universities are doomed. As I’ve said many times
Likewise most jobs. It’s just a fact, now. It’s no longer disputable it’s already happening
The top ones will still survive and indeed if most jobs go you may see an expansion again, even in humanities, as people need something to fill the time with fewer full time jobs around.
Of course a UBI would be inevitable too funded by a tax on companies using automation and robots to render jobs redundant without creating new ones to replace them.
No party would ever get elected again without backing such a UBI in that scenario
I feel his pain. It affects the middle-aged and also the young as graduate and mid-level jobs vanish. And I happen to know the young woman who served me in the fish and chip shop this afternoon, whose birthday was last week, has a degree; I don't suppose fish and chips was her or her mother's plan A when waving her off to college but at least she earns an honest bob and demonstrates a clear work ethic that will be ignored by hiring managers.
It is interesting that the Telegraph traces this phenomenon back to deindustrialisation in the 1980s. It is not just AI or increased employment costs but all these things, and also the increased sale of anything not nailed down which means the good jobs (and the profits) flow overseas.
ETA this is also a reason for thinking the government's concern over forcing people off benefits is at best misguided. There just aren't enough jobs around, so better for employer and employee that they go to those who actually want them.
I'm not sure about other sectors - but in education-IT-land we're not-not hiring because of AI. It's because for every one post we are seeing 50-100 identical candidates. All churned out by various boot-camps and masters programmes. "I have skills in X and Y".
Yep - you and the other identical 99 candidates.
Whether because of the economic incentives ~4yrs ago, or whether X and Y were the only things your lecturers or trainers knew - no idea. But it's very noticeable at the hiring end of the funnel - that our current supply chain is problematic.
(Quite different from the likes of Amazon who have a combination of over-hiring, and massive city/state tax-breaks to try and keep).
Surely the bots are writing their applications and cvs. Hence the identicality
A fair percentage of them - for sure. Getting on for 70% just now. Thankfully most of those are spotted by my "was this written by an AI bot" filter. There are so many applicants who even submit cover letters (and I do truly mean this literally) containing "Certainly! I can help you write a cover letter!" or "I am excited to apply for the post of [REPLACE WITH POST NAME] at [REPLACE WITH COMPANY NAME]". The last post I was on the interview panel for - those must have accounted for 30% or more.
But aside from the low-effort candidates, the degree/boot-camp programmes are all geared to the same tickboxes. 'Java' - tick. 'Python' - tick. Nothing specific, nothing interesting. Always the same 'springboot with a react front end'.
It's getting to the stage of "oh, you even know what a raspberry pi is?! hired!" in geek terms.
If you have 100 near-identical candidates, are you sure you do not have 100 suitable candidates and could probably give the job to any one of them? You might be wasting your time looking for one who stands out because at this stage, none of them will.
I am entirely sure I have 100 suitable candidates in terms of ticking boxes. But I only have one post to offer. My worry is that this is being repeated across the industry and the other 99 youngster candidates who have been sold on the "You just need to know python and java and you're onto a goldmine!" track are in for a shock.
Even just a few years ago we'd have maybe seen 10 candidates rather than 100. We might have even hired two if they seemed interested and interesting. But 100 all who have done nothing but their coursework and show zero actual interest - not a goer. But the have been sold (at some expense) on the same story.
Like Greater Essex is a place, let alone one that needs a mayor. It almost makes one yearn for the days when towns demanded city status.
All part of Labour's push for unitary councils overseen by Mayors
I like the local government reorganisation, and think the goal of trying to bring together various different public sector areas into single geographies is laudable (if unrealistic, especially on the timescales they'd like), but the regional mayors just looks like a means of bypassing local councils to make it easier for Whitehall (and provide some high profile political jobs) rather than any actual need.
It is at least a consistent approach - everywhere in England will be covered by a mayor eventually - than the last government approach.
That's all nonsense, it's biology not fantasy that matters. In 1000 years the fossilised remains of a transgender will be dug up and the archeologists of that era will say "this man died a thousand years ago". There is nothing in the world that will change that and the government has stopped fighting reality.
In 1000 years technology will mean people can have whatever body they want and children learning history will laugh at the foolish ancients who screamed and raged that gender is immutable, like they'll laugh at the idea people once thought the Sun orbited the Earth.
You've been reading the Iain Banks' Culture novels again, haven't you?
(Thinking about it; it's hilarious that Musk named his recovery vessels after spaceships from that series; and yet the series also emphasises the mutability of gender in a world where technology is as near to magic as makes no difference.)
People were also often blizzed out on drugs literally hardwired into their bodies to produce, and most of the stories involved people on the fringes of the society who, consciously or otherwise, couldn't really get with the programme.
I've maintained before I think it was a more dystopic setting than the author intended or realised it to be.
From where we're sitting right now, it looks pretty damn utopian.
First? Really? Like the SNP at the next Holyrood elections?
I can see the logic if the aim is to justify an SNP move away from Independece will solve all problems approach
Nah, he thinks that the unionist vote will split 4 ways and the SNP will win a majority
Trying to build the conditions whereby he can claim legitimacy for independence from a Holyrood vote even though it is ultra vires
Well what's the alternative other than "it's purely down to Westminster, so there's no point us even agitating for it"?
Negotiations with Westminster isn’t a spiky enough approach for the more radical wing of the SNP. But it’s the only one with legitimacy
Claiming a mandate from the election (if they win) is exactly that - the opening of a negotiation.
Nah - it’s an overreach
Westminster will say “it’s not a mandate l, the Supreme Court has ruled as such”
There’s no negotiation possible. Scotland needs to persuade and influence not negotiate
Persuade and influence politicians based in Westminster presumably. Fair play for dispensing with the union of consent bullshit.
The government.
It is a union of consent. The voters consented less than 15 years ago. At some point it will be reasonable to retest that consent - I’d say every 25-30 years is about right - but for a vote to have meaningful you need to respect the wishes of the majority of voters who plumped for the union
Once a Parliament is reasonable in my eyes, if that's what the electorate vote for.
No Parliament can bind its successor and if the people vote for it, that's their choice.
If you have a referendum on major constitutional change every 5 years it will be a perpetual campaign and the instability will prevent anything else getting done
Only if the electorate vote for it.
Keep asking the electorate the same question and they tend to get pissed off about it and vote for someone else, but if they choose not to, that's their choice too.
Democracy.
Perhaps I misunderstood? You suggested an Indy ref every 5 years.
The uncertainty about whether Scotland would be part of the uk would make it uninvestable from a long term business perspective
I think you missed the most important words which were if that's what the electorate vote for. I suggested no more than one per Parliament, and only if the electorate vote for it.
Is it a good idea to have them frequently? No.
Are people entitled to vote for bad ideas? Yes.
We should respect what the people vote for, however they vote. Even if it goes against what you like, or what was determined in earlier Parliaments, since no Parliament can bind its successors.
If a majority of Scottish voters go for the SNP in the next year's Holyrood elections, then I believe it would be wrong to prevent them from calling an independence referendum.
First? Really? Like the SNP at the next Holyrood elections?
I can see the logic if the aim is to justify an SNP move away from Independece will solve all problems approach
Nah, he thinks that the unionist vote will split 4 ways and the SNP will win a majority
Trying to build the conditions whereby he can claim legitimacy for independence from a Holyrood vote even though it is ultra vires
Well what's the alternative other than "it's purely down to Westminster, so there's no point us even agitating for it"?
Negotiations with Westminster isn’t a spiky enough approach for the more radical wing of the SNP. But it’s the only one with legitimacy
Claiming a mandate from the election (if they win) is exactly that - the opening of a negotiation.
Nah - it’s an overreach
Westminster will say “it’s not a mandate l, the Supreme Court has ruled as such”
There’s no negotiation possible. Scotland needs to persuade and influence not negotiate
Persuade and influence politicians based in Westminster presumably. Fair play for dispensing with the union of consent bullshit.
The government.
It is a union of consent. The voters consented less than 15 years ago. At some point it will be reasonable to retest that consent - I’d say every 25-30 years is about right - but for a vote to have meaningful you need to respect the wishes of the majority of voters who plumped for the union
Once a Parliament is reasonable in my eyes, if that's what the electorate vote for.
No Parliament can bind its successor and if the people vote for it, that's their choice.
If you have a referendum on major constitutional change every 5 years it will be a perpetual campaign and the instability will prevent anything else getting done
Only if the electorate vote for it.
Keep asking the electorate the same question and they tend to get pissed off about it and vote for someone else, but if they choose not to, that's their choice too.
Democracy.
Perhaps I misunderstood? You suggested an Indy ref every 5 years.
The uncertainty about whether Scotland would be part of the uk would make it uninvestable from a long term business perspective
I think you missed the most important words which were if that's what the electorate vote for. I suggested no more than one per Parliament, and only if the electorate vote for it.
Is it a good idea to have them frequently? No.
Are people entitled to vote for bad ideas? Yes.
We should respect what the people vote for, however they vote. Even if it goes against what you like, or what was determined in earlier Parliaments, since no Parliament can bind its successors.
If a majority of Scottish voters go for the SNP in the next year's Holyrood elections, then I believe it would be wrong to prevent them from calling an independence referendum.
Voters are entitled to change their mind.
They won't but even if they did Westminster is sovereign and should refuse indyref2
Like Greater Essex is a place, let alone one that needs a mayor. It almost makes one yearn for the days when towns demanded city status.
All part of Labour's push for unitary councils overseen by Mayors
I like the local government reorganisation, and think the goal of trying to bring together various different public sector areas into single geographies is laudable (if unrealistic, especially on the timescales they'd like), but the regional mayors just looks like a means of bypassing local councils to make it easier for Whitehall (and provide some high profile political jobs) rather than any actual need.
It is at least a consistent approach - everywhere in England will be covered by a mayor eventually - than the last government approach.
I believe the Mayor and combined authority are devolution of central government power, while the unitaries are mergers of existing county and district councils
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
Like Greater Essex is a place, let alone one that needs a mayor. It almost makes one yearn for the days when towns demanded city status.
All part of Labour's push for unitary councils overseen by Mayors
I like the local government reorganisation, and think the goal of trying to bring together various different public sector areas into single geographies is laudable (if unrealistic, especially on the timescales they'd like), but the regional mayors just looks like a means of bypassing local councils to make it easier for Whitehall (and provide some high profile political jobs) rather than any actual need.
It is at least a consistent approach - everywhere in England will be covered by a mayor eventually - than the last government approach.
I believe the Mayor and combined authority are devolution of central government power, while the unitaries are mergers of existing county and district councils
Its not really devolution though, not in the way they try to sell it. More taking power away from the locals with the added lure of pots of central funding which they could already actually devolve without an additional layer of authorities, but choose not to.
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
Just make the internet illegal for them and be done with it then, might as well at that point.
Like Greater Essex is a place, let alone one that needs a mayor. It almost makes one yearn for the days when towns demanded city status.
All part of Labour's push for unitary councils overseen by Mayors
I like the local government reorganisation, and think the goal of trying to bring together various different public sector areas into single geographies is laudable (if unrealistic, especially on the timescales they'd like), but the regional mayors just looks like a means of bypassing local councils to make it easier for Whitehall (and provide some high profile political jobs) rather than any actual need.
It is at least a consistent approach - everywhere in England will be covered by a mayor eventually - than the last government approach.
I believe the Mayor and combined authority are devolution of central government power, while the unitaries are mergers of existing county and district councils
Its not really devolution though, not in the way they try to sell it. More taking power away from the locals with the added lure of pots of central funding which they could already actually devolve without an additional layer of authorities, but choose not to.
Economic development and transport, including trains and infrastructure plus extra funding on top is supposed to be the main devolution from central government to new Mayors and combined authorities
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
Just make the internet illegal for them and be done with it then, might as well at that point.
Most people access the internet without using a VPN or Tor when browsing for their private use
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
No, it wouldn't, as people would simply download VPNs.
Piracy is illegal. Doesn't stop people engaging in it.
Streaming football or cricket without paying for it is illegal. Doesn't stop people doing it.
A simple Google search tells you how to do any of that. Under the law as it is today. Try telling a teenager its illegal for them to watch football, or download a game, or download porn and see how many that stops from doing it.
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Why be so defeatist.
Because I live in the real world.
Governments have been trying to halt illegal downloads since Napster was a thing, they've never succeeded - and teenagers are well versed at getting around restrictions.
Technophobes may dislike technology, but teenagers and the tech savvy embrace it and are steps ahead of any technophobes.
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Why be so defeatist.
Because I live in the real world.
Governments have been trying to halt illegal downloads since Napster was a thing, they've never succeeded - and teenagers are well versed at getting around restrictions.
Technophobes may dislike technology, but teenagers and the tech savvy embrace it and are steps ahead of any technophobes.
China has extraordinarily effective and vicious internet oversight and censorship. Teenagers futzing around do not last long against the death penalty. Michael Howard (a man I like more in retrospect) once said as Home Secretary that his job was to take all the stupid suggestions and tip them in the bin. Starmer seems more keen on putting them into practice.
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
No, it wouldn't, as people would simply download VPNs.
Piracy is illegal. Doesn't stop people engaging in it.
Streaming football or cricket without paying for it is illegal. Doesn't stop people doing it.
A simple Google search tells you how to do any of that. Under the law as it is today. Try telling a teenager its illegal for them to watch football, or download a game, or download porn and see how many that stops from doing it.
Download of VPNs would also be illegal of course monitored by GCHQ to catch those who try it
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
No, it wouldn't, as people would simply download VPNs.
Piracy is illegal. Doesn't stop people engaging in it.
Streaming football or cricket without paying for it is illegal. Doesn't stop people doing it.
A simple Google search tells you how to do any of that. Under the law as it is today. Try telling a teenager its illegal for them to watch football, or download a game, or download porn and see how many that stops from doing it.
Download of VPNs would also be illegal of course monitored by GCHQ to catch those who try it
I suppose this means we would need special UK linux distributions without OpenVPN?
And I'm not allowed to have my own Wireguard network to manage remote devices?
Whilst maybe I don't care too much if someone does a bit of snooping and turns on some greenhouse sprayers, it might be more of a problem if I was running an electricity company...
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
No, it wouldn't, as people would simply download VPNs.
Piracy is illegal. Doesn't stop people engaging in it.
Streaming football or cricket without paying for it is illegal. Doesn't stop people doing it.
A simple Google search tells you how to do any of that. Under the law as it is today. Try telling a teenager its illegal for them to watch football, or download a game, or download porn and see how many that stops from doing it.
Download of VPNs would also be illegal of course monitored by GCHQ to catch those who try it
PMSL, sure, of course it would.
Give one good reason why GCHQ could stop VPNs, which are available freely and some open source, when illegal downloads, torrents, piracy and streams all thrive on the internet.
Indeed the only time that illegal streams end up getting stopped is when people have a legal source that's easily accessible as an alternative. Why use illegal sites to download music when legitimate music streaming services are so easily accessible.
But you want to cut off the legal alternatives. Which will drive people into the arms of illegal ones, not cut off their access.
HYUFD seems to be of the misapprehension that VPNs are some high tech criminal enterprise that would be flagged by GCHQ and easily stopped.
Rather than a very low tech, easily accessible, widely available and easily distributed solution.
Browsers nowadays have VPNs built into them. Needs nothing more than going into settings, turning it on and choosing your location and you're in America or anywhere else you want to be as far as the browser is concerned. Which is of no interest whatsoever to anyone in Cheltenham, nor is it something they can or will be tracking, any more than your going into private browsing in your app is tracked and stopped by GCHQ.
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
No, it wouldn't, as people would simply download VPNs.
Piracy is illegal. Doesn't stop people engaging in it.
Streaming football or cricket without paying for it is illegal. Doesn't stop people doing it.
A simple Google search tells you how to do any of that. Under the law as it is today. Try telling a teenager its illegal for them to watch football, or download a game, or download porn and see how many that stops from doing it.
Download of VPNs would also be illegal of course monitored by GCHQ to catch those who try it
I suppose this means we would need special UK linux distributions without OpenVPN?
And I'm not allowed to have my own Wireguard network to manage remote devices?
Whilst maybe I don't care too much if someone does a bit of snooping and turns on some greenhouse sprayers, it might be more of a problem if I was running an electricity company...
Indeed: I use Tailscale (based on Wireguard) all the time to monitor network devices. It's kind of insane that anyone might think that banning VPNs would do anything other than impose extremely high costs for very little practical benefit.
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Why be so defeatist.
Because I live in the real world.
Governments have been trying to halt illegal downloads since Napster was a thing, they've never succeeded - and teenagers are well versed at getting around restrictions.
Technophobes may dislike technology, but teenagers and the tech savvy embrace it and are steps ahead of any technophobes.
China has extraordinarily effective and vicious internet oversight and censorship. Teenagers futzing around do not last long against the death penalty. Michael Howard (a man I like more in retrospect) once said as Home Secretary that his job was to take all the stupid suggestions and tip them in the bin. Starmer seems more keen on putting them into practice.
This is not legal advice but IIUC Chinese citizens are not really prevented from using VPNs if they want to, outside very politically repressed places like Xinjiang and Tibet. The repression is enough to make the censored thing better and easier to use but they know people need the uncensored internet for a lot of purposes and the government isn't so stupid as to put its regime between a teenage boy and his porn.
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
No, it wouldn't, as people would simply download VPNs.
Piracy is illegal. Doesn't stop people engaging in it.
Streaming football or cricket without paying for it is illegal. Doesn't stop people doing it.
A simple Google search tells you how to do any of that. Under the law as it is today. Try telling a teenager its illegal for them to watch football, or download a game, or download porn and see how many that stops from doing it.
Download of VPNs would also be illegal of course monitored by GCHQ to catch those who try it
With all due respect, you really are being an authoritarian fool.
Still, you do demonstrate exactly why we get such poorly drafted legislation. Otherwise intelligent people - but with little capacity to admit they are wrong once they've made their mind up, and believe their moral calculus is superior to that of anyone who argues with them - are capable of being very silly for extended periods of time.
“I kept explaining that they’re gardening tools, none of the blades were on show,” Rowe added. “I said that I don’t leave [the tools] at my allotment because it’s not secure, people can break into the allotments and easily get into your shed in five minutes … they were just constantly not listening.”
Rowe said he was interviewed without legal representation as officers had been unable to reach a solicitor, and after spending several hours in custody he said he accepted a caution so he would be released...
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Why be so defeatist.
Because I live in the real world.
Governments have been trying to halt illegal downloads since Napster was a thing, they've never succeeded - and teenagers are well versed at getting around restrictions.
Technophobes may dislike technology, but teenagers and the tech savvy embrace it and are steps ahead of any technophobes.
China has extraordinarily effective and vicious internet oversight and censorship. Teenagers futzing around do not last long against the death penalty. Michael Howard (a man I like more in retrospect) once said as Home Secretary that his job was to take all the stupid suggestions and tip them in the bin. Starmer seems more keen on putting them into practice.
This is not legal advice but IIUC Chinese citizens are not really prevented from using VPNs if they want to, outside very politically repressed places like Xinjiang and Tibet. The repression is enough to make the censored thing better and easier to use but they know people need the uncensored internet for a lot of purposes and the government isn't so stupid as to put its regime between a teenage boy and his porn.
Enforcement is intermittent. Commercial VPNs are mostly blocked on a per IP address basis. But it's fairly easy to connect to a VPS outside China and route traffic like that. (Tunneling over SSH / Shadowsocks / etc)
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
First, in less affluent families with shared devices, how would you enforce that mum could use the installed VPN but her daughter could not? (Yes, I know best practice is they log in with their own accounts but who does that?)
Second, VPNs are routinely used to access servers hosted in the cloud, which might happen from schools.
“I kept explaining that they’re gardening tools, none of the blades were on show,” Rowe added. “I said that I don’t leave [the tools] at my allotment because it’s not secure, people can break into the allotments and easily get into your shed in five minutes … they were just constantly not listening.”
Rowe said he was interviewed without legal representation as officers had been unable to reach a solicitor, and after spending several hours in custody he said he accepted a caution so he would be released...
One step up from arresting chefs and electricians heading to/from work carrying knives in public, of which there was a spate a few years back.
First? Really? Like the SNP at the next Holyrood elections?
I can see the logic if the aim is to justify an SNP move away from Independece will solve all problems approach
Nah, he thinks that the unionist vote will split 4 ways and the SNP will win a majority
Trying to build the conditions whereby he can claim legitimacy for independence from a Holyrood vote even though it is ultra vires
Well what's the alternative other than "it's purely down to Westminster, so there's no point us even agitating for it"?
Negotiations with Westminster isn’t a spiky enough approach for the more radical wing of the SNP. But it’s the only one with legitimacy
Claiming a mandate from the election (if they win) is exactly that - the opening of a negotiation.
Nah - it’s an overreach
Westminster will say “it’s not a mandate l, the Supreme Court has ruled as such”
There’s no negotiation possible. Scotland needs to persuade and influence not negotiate
Persuade and influence politicians based in Westminster presumably. Fair play for dispensing with the union of consent bullshit.
The government.
It is a union of consent. The voters consented less than 15 years ago. At some point it will be reasonable to retest that consent - I’d say every 25-30 years is about right - but for a vote to have meaningful you need to respect the wishes of the majority of voters who plumped for the union
Once a Parliament is reasonable in my eyes, if that's what the electorate vote for.
No Parliament can bind its successor and if the people vote for it, that's their choice.
If you have a referendum on major constitutional change every 5 years it will be a perpetual campaign and the instability will prevent anything else getting done
Sure, but if that's what they keep asking for...
That’s the point: it isn’t, it’s just a very noisy minority.
Additionally the English have rights as well - they face disruption from the continued agitation.
Apart from my very first professional job, which was through a graduate scheme, all the jobs I've got have been through personal recommendation or introduction.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
“I kept explaining that they’re gardening tools, none of the blades were on show,” Rowe added. “I said that I don’t leave [the tools] at my allotment because it’s not secure, people can break into the allotments and easily get into your shed in five minutes … they were just constantly not listening.”
Rowe said he was interviewed without legal representation as officers had been unable to reach a solicitor, and after spending several hours in custody he said he accepted a caution so he would be released...
Never accept a caution.
He should have demanded they charge him or release him.
They want a conviction to up their "detection" and "clear up" rates, and rely upon self-incrimination or you accepting a caution.
I wonder how many under 18s will acquire a VPN this week?
Are there any downsides to making VPNs illegal for the under 18s but legal for everyone else?
It wouldn't work.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Making VPNs and Tor illegal though would make it more difficult to access illegal material and the darknet and for children to access material intended only for adults
No, it wouldn't, as people would simply download VPNs.
Piracy is illegal. Doesn't stop people engaging in it.
Streaming football or cricket without paying for it is illegal. Doesn't stop people doing it.
A simple Google search tells you how to do any of that. Under the law as it is today. Try telling a teenager its illegal for them to watch football, or download a game, or download porn and see how many that stops from doing it.
Download of VPNs would also be illegal of course monitored by GCHQ to catch those who try it
With all due respect, you really are being an authoritarian fool.
Still, you do demonstrate exactly why we get such poorly drafted legislation. Otherwise intelligent people - but with little capacity to admit they are wrong once they've made their mind up, and believe their moral calculus is superior to that of anyone who argues with them - are capable of being very silly for extended periods of time.
It's also what happens when you overdo the doctrine of "the will of the people, expressed through Parliament, is supreme".
Parliament can pass a law saying anything it likes. Doesn't make it true, or make it enforceable.
Apart from my very first professional job, which was through a graduate scheme, all the jobs I've got have been through personal recommendation or introduction.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
My advice to jobseekers is to ask everyone they know if their company has any vacancies, or, as the posh people say, network. It is probably inefficient for the economy as a whole, and unfair for individuals, but at the micro level of company and applicant, it makes sense.
Connections, the old school tie and nepo babies, it's what made Britain.
HYUFD seems to be of the misapprehension that VPNs are some high tech criminal enterprise that would be flagged by GCHQ and easily stopped.
Rather than a very low tech, easily accessible, widely available and easily distributed solution.
Browsers nowadays have VPNs built into them. Needs nothing more than going into settings, turning it on and choosing your location and you're in America or anywhere else you want to be as far as the browser is concerned. Which is of no interest whatsoever to anyone in Cheltenham, nor is it something they can or will be tracking, any more than your going into private browsing in your app is tracked and stopped by GCHQ.
Whilst agreeing with the general thrust of your comment, I'd just comment that some VPN companies may not be (ahem) run by people who are not high-tech criminals...
Always be careful which VPN company you choose, and be ready to swap if necessary. Depending on your use case, of course.
Apart from my very first professional job, which was through a graduate scheme, all the jobs I've got have been through personal recommendation or introduction.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
My advice to jobseekers is to ask everyone they know if their company has any vacancies, or, as the posh people say, network. It is probably inefficient for the economy as a whole, and unfair for individuals, but at the micro level of company and applicant, it makes sense.
Connections, the old school tie and nepo babies, it's what made Britain.
A couple of years back, I recommended to a young friend of the family that she attend conferences in the area of business she wanted to go into, whilst at university. Neither her, nor my, family, had any contacts in the area of business.
Apart from my very first professional job, which was through a graduate scheme, all the jobs I've got have been through personal recommendation or introduction.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
I'm the opposite, I've got most of my jobs through headhunters or public application processes.
Not all of them, a few have been through former colleagues who for some reason hadn't had enough of me the first time.
Networking can of course be very effective in many situations, though I've never been able to take it entirely seriously as a word or a concept since someone when I was at university defined it to me as "making friends with people you don't like".
2024 General Election. Vote SNP to be FOR SCOTLAND. If you vote against us you're against Scotland 2026 Holyrood Election. Vote SNP FOR INDEPENDENCE. if you vote for another independence party you're a UNIONIST
The case isn’t about whether Peggie made a few off colour jokes on a WhatsApp group. It’s about single sex spaces and men going into them. It’s about NHS fife conspiring against Peggie because she is gender critical. It’s about Upton falsifying electronic notes after the alleged incident to make Peggie look bad (the interpretation of the computer expert). That Peggie might find Upton ‘weird’ is irrelevant.
It's not about that either (and there are otherexplanations for email asynchrony) .
It does not matter if Nurse Peggie is a staggering racist or not: if she is she has kept it to social media and does not appear to have reflected that in IRL, so it's not a problem and nobody's perfect. It does not matter if the procedures followed by NHS Fife were imperfect: no process can withstand the scrutiny it's being subjected to. What does matter is the facts of the encounter and I remind you of my post , which I paraphrase below:
"...That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points, which are below. i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room? ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
[This is] the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance..."
Oddly the defence, prosecution, BU, SP and the witnesses all agree that there was an encounter in the nurse's changing room, that SP objected to BU's presence, that BU was upset by it, and that NHS Fife suspended her for it. Minutae and the personal qualities of BU and SP are not relevant.
I haven't been following this especially closely, but testimony has been heard that Peggie did not restrict her Islamophobic and other views to social media:
While Upton should not have been in that changing room, that does not give Peggie carte blanche to use abusive language of a discriminatory nature in that changing room confrontation.
There were no witnesses, so the credibility and past behaviour of the protagonists is a key issue to investigate.
Come on Foxy, that’s hearsay. Todays witness has a clear dislike of Peggie. Peggie will be back to testify again this week to rebu some of the shit flung at her.
Doctors always mange to blame it on the nurses, they circle the wagons damn quick.
Apart from my very first professional job, which was through a graduate scheme, all the jobs I've got have been through personal recommendation or introduction.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
My advice to jobseekers is to ask everyone they know if their company has any vacancies, or, as the posh people say, network. It is probably inefficient for the economy as a whole, and unfair for individuals, but at the micro level of company and applicant, it makes sense.
Connections, the old school tie and nepo babies, it's what made Britain.
Not just Britain. It's human.
Does mean that the concentration of business power in a shrinking number of hands is a problem. The more people and places that have power to offer interesting jobs, the more likely it is that people will be on the fringe of a network to get their foot in a door.
(So media as a career was almost certainly healthier when every large town/small city had a functioning newspaper and radio station.)
The BBC's lead news story on television and on the web is yesterday's New York shooting that killed four people. Yesterday's stabbing in London that killed two and injured two more did not even make the BBC's 10pm bulletin. It is, however, below the fold on the BBC's news website.
Another reminder that, especially overnight and at weekends, BBC News slavishly follows the US channels which is why we get so much American domestic news.
As an aside, one poignant detail from New York is that the police officer who was killed had immigrated from Bangladesh.
The case isn’t about whether Peggie made a few off colour jokes on a WhatsApp group. It’s about single sex spaces and men going into them. It’s about NHS fife conspiring against Peggie because she is gender critical. It’s about Upton falsifying electronic notes after the alleged incident to make Peggie look bad (the interpretation of the computer expert). That Peggie might find Upton ‘weird’ is irrelevant.
It's not about that either (and there are otherexplanations for email asynchrony) .
It does not matter if Nurse Peggie is a staggering racist or not: if she is she has kept it to social media and does not appear to have reflected that in IRL, so it's not a problem and nobody's perfect. It does not matter if the procedures followed by NHS Fife were imperfect: no process can withstand the scrutiny it's being subjected to. What does matter is the facts of the encounter and I remind you of my post , which I paraphrase below:
"...That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points, which are below. i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room? ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
[This is] the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance..."
Oddly the defence, prosecution, BU, SP and the witnesses all agree that there was an encounter in the nurse's changing room, that SP objected to BU's presence, that BU was upset by it, and that NHS Fife suspended her for it. Minutae and the personal qualities of BU and SP are not relevant.
I haven't been following this especially closely, but testimony has been heard that Peggie did not restrict her Islamophobic and other views to social media:
While Upton should not have been in that changing room, that does not give Peggie carte blanche to use abusive language of a discriminatory nature in that changing room confrontation.
There were no witnesses, so the credibility and past behaviour of the protagonists is a key issue to investigate.
PBers do like to lie down in the road to protest the innocence of some pretty rum old birds. Lucy Connolly and now this version of Florence Nightingale.
Most peculiar...
“Gender row nurse ‘wanted to post bacon through mosque letterbox’, tribunal told”
She sounds like a lovely person.
And on and on it goes. Keep smearing her if it makes you happy. Nasty old bigot wanting not to get naked in front of a man.
Just shows how well targeted NHS Fifes lawyers are.
If this nurse was in the habit of making both racist remarks /and/ anti-trans comments aimed at an individual, then those would both be valid grounds to sack her given her employer’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010. That anti-trans campaigners are desperate to drag the discussion back to changing rooms is unsurprising, since they’re on stronger legal ground there, but this is relevant to the court case as far as I can see.
If the trust sacked her for being a bigot, not for her complaints about sharing single sex spaces & it turns out she is in fact a bigot, with the evidence being her own words, then the whole case looks very different doesn’t it?
Just the medical establishment trying to punish her for beating them.
The BBC's lead news story on television and on the web is yesterday's New York shooting that killed four people. Yesterday's stabbing in London that killed two and injured two more did not even make the BBC's 10pm bulletin. It is, however, below the fold on the BBC's news website.
Another reminder that, especially overnight and at weekends, BBC News slavishly follows the US channels which is why we get so much American domestic news.
As an aside, one poignant detail from New York is that the police officer who was killed had immigrated from Bangladesh.
What makes it even more sad is his wife is expecting their child.
Like Greater Essex is a place, let alone one that needs a mayor. It almost makes one yearn for the days when towns demanded city status.
All part of Labour's push for unitary councils overseen by Mayors
I like the local government reorganisation, and think the goal of trying to bring together various different public sector areas into single geographies is laudable (if unrealistic, especially on the timescales they'd like), but the regional mayors just looks like a means of bypassing local councils to make it easier for Whitehall (and provide some high profile political jobs) rather than any actual need.
It is at least a consistent approach - everywhere in England will be covered by a mayor eventually - than the last government approach.
I believe the Mayor and combined authority are devolution of central government power, while the unitaries are mergers of existing county and district councils
In theory. The difference is that central government holds various theoretical powers - like the ability to call in local planning decisions if they have ‘strategic impact’ - which are rarely used. Similarly government could use its bully pulpit to comment on and effectively meddle in what local councils are deciding, but again this is rarely (but not never!) used. Active regional mayors are far more likely to use their powers - both hard and soft - to influence, or even override, what the councils in their area are deciding. Therefore while in legal terms it represents devolution of power, in practical application local councils will find that their freedom to act has been somewhat curtailed - exactly what happened in London when the mayoral/GLA tier was inserted above the boroughs.
The other dimension is that it is easier for a government to bribe or threaten a mayor, using the political process (rather than the mafia one - unless the government does actually have the photos…) to offer or withhold funding, grants and permissions, than it is to do that to a whole council.
The lyricist Alan Bergman has died. He co-wrote The Windmills of Your Mind. Since this is pb, here is that song reworked as a satire on Boris Johnson:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_gojozdxok
Apart from my very first professional job, which was through a graduate scheme, all the jobs I've got have been through personal recommendation or introduction.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
My advice to jobseekers is to ask everyone they know if their company has any vacancies, or, as the posh people say, network. It is probably inefficient for the economy as a whole, and unfair for individuals, but at the micro level of company and applicant, it makes sense.
Connections, the old school tie and nepo babies, it's what made Britain.
It actually has nothing to do with old school ties it's just that people ask around "is he good?" and if you are known in the industry and have a reputation it's much easier.
Oh I'm just eating the world's best salad nicoise (Ortiz jarred tuna!) off a 19th century Japanese imari plate while drinking an OBSCENELY overaged white Burgundy: Saint Aubin, Domaine du Primont, Premier Cru, 2012, which is now so old it tastes like a vintage Sauternes that did heroin and somehow survived to live in Hyeres in a small chalet decorated with Django Reinhardt vinyl album covers
Yawn.
So you don't want to know what I had for my tea either then?
Ah yes, well that's different. Bit less poncey.
Crispy pancakes and chips?
Also, my bedroom now looks like THIS
No writer would start a post on a new topic with "Also…", so we can presume that is an auto-correct for "Alas…".
Apart from my very first professional job, which was through a graduate scheme, all the jobs I've got have been through personal recommendation or introduction.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
I'm the opposite, I've got most of my jobs through headhunters or public application processes.
Not all of them, a few have been through former colleagues who for some reason hadn't had enough of me the first time.
Networking can of course be very effective in many situations, though I've never been able to take it entirely seriously as a word or a concept since someone when I was at university defined it to me as "making friends with people you don't like".
True of course but I wish he hadn't said it.
Networking works but it works through working with people and showing what you can do.
I've had very few opportunities that have come off from a chance chat at a conference or event, although sometimes it results in an exchange of business cards, and a follow-up coffee, email or chat.
Like Greater Essex is a place, let alone one that needs a mayor. It almost makes one yearn for the days when towns demanded city status.
All part of Labour's push for unitary councils overseen by Mayors
I like the local government reorganisation, and think the goal of trying to bring together various different public sector areas into single geographies is laudable (if unrealistic, especially on the timescales they'd like), but the regional mayors just looks like a means of bypassing local councils to make it easier for Whitehall (and provide some high profile political jobs) rather than any actual need.
It is at least a consistent approach - everywhere in England will be covered by a mayor eventually - than the last government approach.
I believe the Mayor and combined authority are devolution of central government power, while the unitaries are mergers of existing county and district councils
In theory. The difference is that central government holds various theoretical powers - like the ability to call in local planning decisions if they have ‘strategic impact’ - which are rarely used. Similarly government could use its bully pulpit to comment on and effectively meddle in what local councils are deciding, but again this is rarely (but not never!) used. Active regional mayors are far more likely to use their powers - both hard and soft - to influence, or even override, what the councils in their area are deciding. Therefore while in legal terms it represents devolution of power, in practical application local councils will find that their freedom to act has been somewhat curtailed - exactly what happened in London when the mayoral/GLA tier was inserted above the boroughs.
The other dimension is that it is easier for a government to bribe or threaten a mayor, using the political process (rather than the mafia one - unless the government does actually have the photos…) to offer or withhold funding, grants and permissions, than it is to do that to a whole council.
Does it lead to the levels of corruption seen in other mayoralties?
Apart from my very first professional job, which was through a graduate scheme, all the jobs I've got have been through personal recommendation or introduction.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
My advice to jobseekers is to ask everyone they know if their company has any vacancies, or, as the posh people say, network. It is probably inefficient for the economy as a whole, and unfair for individuals, but at the micro level of company and applicant, it makes sense.
Connections, the old school tie and nepo babies, it's what made Britain.
It actually has nothing to do with old school ties it's just that people ask around "is he good?" and if you are known in the industry and have a reputation it's much easier.
Essentially, employers are highly risk averse.
I found, in the public sector, that managers get in people "they like working with" (in one case, including someone we suspected was the boss's ex-mistress). This is not obviously effective, or efficient, the best person for the job might be someone you have never met or, indeed, don't like very much.
That's all nonsense, it's biology not fantasy that matters. In 1000 years the fossilised remains of a transgender will be dug up and the archeologists of that era will say "this man died a thousand years ago". There is nothing in the world that will change that and the government has stopped fighting reality.
In 1000 years technology will mean people can have whatever body they want and children learning history will laugh at the foolish ancients who screamed and raged that gender is immutable, like they'll laugh at the idea people once thought the Sun orbited the Earth.
You've been reading the Iain Banks' Culture novels again, haven't you?
(Thinking about it; it's hilarious that Musk named his recovery vessels after spaceships from that series; and yet the series also emphasises the mutability of gender in a world where technology is as near to magic as makes no difference.)
People were also often blizzed out on drugs literally hardwired into their bodies to produce, and most of the stories involved people on the fringes of the society who, consciously or otherwise, couldn't really get with the programme.
I've maintained before I think it was a more dystopic setting than the author intended or realised it to be.
From where we're sitting right now, it looks pretty damn utopian.
Apart from the occasional mega-death from Special Circumstances having fun.
The case isn’t about whether Peggie made a few off colour jokes on a WhatsApp group. It’s about single sex spaces and men going into them. It’s about NHS fife conspiring against Peggie because she is gender critical. It’s about Upton falsifying electronic notes after the alleged incident to make Peggie look bad (the interpretation of the computer expert). That Peggie might find Upton ‘weird’ is irrelevant.
It's not about that either (and there are otherexplanations for email asynchrony) .
It does not matter if Nurse Peggie is a staggering racist or not: if she is she has kept it to social media and does not appear to have reflected that in IRL, so it's not a problem and nobody's perfect. It does not matter if the procedures followed by NHS Fife were imperfect: no process can withstand the scrutiny it's being subjected to. What does matter is the facts of the encounter and I remind you of my post , which I paraphrase below:
"...That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points, which are below. i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room? ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
[This is] the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance..."
Oddly the defence, prosecution, BU, SP and the witnesses all agree that there was an encounter in the nurse's changing room, that SP objected to BU's presence, that BU was upset by it, and that NHS Fife suspended her for it. Minutae and the personal qualities of BU and SP are not relevant.
I haven't been following this especially closely, but testimony has been heard that Peggie did not restrict her Islamophobic and other views to social media:
While Upton should not have been in that changing room, that does not give Peggie carte blanche to use abusive language of a discriminatory nature in that changing room confrontation.
There were no witnesses, so the credibility and past behaviour of the protagonists is a key issue to investigate.
PBers do like to lie down in the road to protest the innocence of some pretty rum old birds. Lucy Connolly and now this version of Florence Nightingale.
Most peculiar...
“Gender row nurse ‘wanted to post bacon through mosque letterbox’, tribunal told”
She sounds like a lovely person.
And on and on it goes. Keep smearing her if it makes you happy. Nasty old bigot wanting not to get naked in front of a man.
Just shows how well targeted NHS Fifes lawyers are.
If this nurse was in the habit of making both racist remarks /and/ anti-trans comments aimed at an individual, then those would both be valid grounds to sack her given her employer’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010. That anti-trans campaigners are desperate to drag the discussion back to changing rooms is unsurprising, since they’re on stronger legal ground there, but this is relevant to the court case as far as I can see.
If the trust sacked her for being a bigot, not for her complaints about sharing single sex spaces & it turns out she is in fact a bigot, with the evidence being her own words, then the whole case looks very different doesn’t it?
Greetings from Ireland (or at least, that's where my VPN says I live now).
I don't want to get into speculation on an ongoing tribunal, what I will say is the whole thing is an absolute sideshow compared to
1)
The government's determination to limit 'trans people's ability to exist in public space', but moreover have chosen to do it in a way that 'has given up on parliamentary democracy and instinctively reverts to ministerial power'.
This is covered excellently by Ian Dunt on his substack, here -
He describes it as 'a mortifying stitch up' that would 'constitute the de-facto eradication of trans people from Britain's social fabric'. Which is, of course, the point.
If you're bored by the narrow focus of the trans debate, Dunt widens his article to note to the increased use of statutory instruments to bypass parliament on issues ranging from restrictions on pornography to pandemic lockdowns. So essential reading even if you're bored by traaaaans.
2)
The capture of the EHRC by so-called 'Sex Matters', a sectional interest group that has been given privileged access to both the EHRC and the consultation process, indeed, much of the new code of practice has been lifted directly from the anti-trans pressure group. This is covered extensively by published documents under a FOI request, accessible here:
Tacc notes that Sex Matters have been given privileged access with 'Language from Sex Matters appears almost word-for-word in EHRC policy guidance on single-sex spaces and sports'. If a pro-trans group was given this level of access, anti trans campaigners would be shouting from the rooftops about it being a stitch up.
People with any sense of fairness should be shouting about it now.
3)
Bridget Philipson looking set to appoint Dr Mary Ann Stephenson, a woman with notable pro TERF views (google them if you want a full history) to replace Kishwer Falkner, despite the fact that the Women and Equalites Commission have written to her to reject her as a candidate on the basis of concerns about 'vision and leadership' as well as 'restoring trust' in the organisation, noting that the 'EHRC has lost the trust of some communities'
The lack of fairness and impartiality exposed by all three examples above is shocking and should be seen as problematic irrespective of whether or not you hold gender critical views.
These are real issues. And they strike deep at the heart of good government. Which is far bigger in scale than the narrow focus of the NHS Fife case.
Quite amusing, given the tendency in the not-so-distant past to see advice lifted almost word for word from Stonewall, which you never once objected to.
Sex does matter, its a protected characteristic distinct from identity and so those who wish to eradicate sex from the law have lost at the Supreme Court and may object to single sex spaces existing where there are legitimate reasons for them to do so such as in sport, or changing rooms etc but that's not problematic, its the law.
If you are trans and wish to identify as a different sex to the one you actually are biologically then good luck to you, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights or safeguarding.
When safeguarding comes into play though, women's-only spaces are for actual women, and not men who identify as women.
Wear whatever you want to wear. Go by whatever name you wish to be identified with.
But don't violate the safeguarding of others.
Because of the limited intellect and curiosity of politicians and other “Top People”, they contract out their thinking and policy making.
So it is something like inevitable that the policy they pursue and the advisors they listen to come from one of the sides on an issue.
“I kept explaining that they’re gardening tools, none of the blades were on show,” Rowe added. “I said that I don’t leave [the tools] at my allotment because it’s not secure, people can break into the allotments and easily get into your shed in five minutes … they were just constantly not listening.”
Rowe said he was interviewed without legal representation as officers had been unable to reach a solicitor, and after spending several hours in custody he said he accepted a caution so he would be released...
Never accept a caution.
He should have demanded they charge him or release him.
They want a conviction to up their "detection" and "clear up" rates, and rely upon self-incrimination or you accepting a caution.
People don’t realise that when you “accept” a caution you end up with a criminal record.
The BBC's lead news story on television and on the web is yesterday's New York shooting that killed four people. Yesterday's stabbing in London that killed two and injured two more did not even make the BBC's 10pm bulletin. It is, however, below the fold on the BBC's news website.
Another reminder that, especially overnight and at weekends, BBC News slavishly follows the US channels which is why we get so much American domestic news.
As an aside, one poignant detail from New York is that the police officer who was killed had immigrated from Bangladesh.
Its frankly astonishing that this isn't one of the top news stories on the BBC news.
Comments
And who'd want to use one of those? Baddies - that's who. Good people - people with legitimate business - of whom there are many! - would use a regulated VPN service."
** Members interest: Was flown to Bali by the "We love regulation" VPN providers association, accommodation paid for by M.Moneypenny & Co.
I've maintained before I think it was a more dystopic setting than the author intended or realised it to be.
Of course a UBI would be inevitable too funded by a tax on companies using automation and robots to render jobs redundant without creating new ones to replace them.
No party would ever get elected again without backing such a UBI in that scenario
Even just a few years ago we'd have maybe seen 10 candidates rather than 100. We might have even hired two if they seemed interested and interesting. But 100 all who have done nothing but their coursework and show zero actual interest - not a goer. But the have been sold (at some expense) on the same story.
It is at least a consistent approach - everywhere in England will be covered by a mayor eventually - than the last government approach.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Voters are entitled to change their mind.
Piracy is illegal. Doesn't stop people engaging in it.
Streaming football or cricket without paying for it is illegal. Doesn't stop people doing it.
A simple Google search tells you how to do any of that. Under the law as it is today. Try telling a teenager its illegal for them to watch football, or download a game, or download porn and see how many that stops from doing it.
Governments have been trying to halt illegal downloads since Napster was a thing, they've never succeeded - and teenagers are well versed at getting around restrictions.
Technophobes may dislike technology, but teenagers and the tech savvy embrace it and are steps ahead of any technophobes.
And I'm not allowed to have my own Wireguard network to manage remote devices?
Whilst maybe I don't care too much if someone does a bit of snooping and turns on some greenhouse sprayers, it might be more of a problem if I was running an electricity company...
Give one good reason why GCHQ could stop VPNs, which are available freely and some open source, when illegal downloads, torrents, piracy and streams all thrive on the internet.
Indeed the only time that illegal streams end up getting stopped is when people have a legal source that's easily accessible as an alternative. Why use illegal sites to download music when legitimate music streaming services are so easily accessible.
But you want to cut off the legal alternatives. Which will drive people into the arms of illegal ones, not cut off their access.
Rather than a very low tech, easily accessible, widely available and easily distributed solution.
Browsers nowadays have VPNs built into them. Needs nothing more than going into settings, turning it on and choosing your location and you're in America or anywhere else you want to be as far as the browser is concerned. Which is of no interest whatsoever to anyone in Cheltenham, nor is it something they can or will be tracking, any more than your going into private browsing in your app is tracked and stopped by GCHQ.
Apart from anyone who’s ever worked in IT.
And anyone who’s ever known a 14-year-old boy.
Still, you do demonstrate exactly why we get such poorly drafted legislation.
Otherwise intelligent people - but with little capacity to admit they are wrong once they've made their mind up, and believe their moral calculus is superior to that of anyone who argues with them - are capable of being very silly for extended periods of time.
This guy now has a criminal recorded for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
If you're ever arrested, do not talk to the police on any circumstances until you have a lawyer. And probably not after you do.
Man carrying home his gardening tools arrested by armed police in Manchester
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/28/man-allotment-gardening-tools-arrest-armed-police-manchester
...“[I had] to explain in very basic terms what an allotment is to this guy,” he said. “So it didn’t fill me with a lot of confidence that I was going to be let off.”
“I kept explaining that they’re gardening tools, none of the blades were on show,” Rowe added. “I said that I don’t leave [the tools] at my allotment because it’s not secure, people can break into the allotments and easily get into your shed in five minutes … they were just constantly not listening.”
Rowe said he was interviewed without legal representation as officers had been unable to reach a solicitor, and after spending several hours in custody he said he accepted a caution so he would be released...
Second, VPNs are routinely used to access servers hosted in the cloud, which might happen from schools.
Additionally the English have rights as well - they face disruption from the continued agitation.
I've had to update my CV and attend one interview or two, at most, and then negotiate the offer - which I've done every time.
He should have demanded they charge him or release him.
They want a conviction to up their "detection" and "clear up" rates, and rely upon self-incrimination or you accepting a caution.
Parliament can pass a law saying anything it likes. Doesn't make it true, or make it enforceable.
Connections, the old school tie and nepo babies, it's what made Britain.
Always be careful which VPN company you choose, and be ready to swap if necessary. Depending on your use case, of course.
Apparently it worked.
Not all of them, a few have been through former colleagues who for some reason hadn't had enough of me the first time.
Networking can of course be very effective in many situations, though I've never been able to take it entirely seriously as a word or a concept since someone when I was at university defined it to me as "making friends with people you don't like".
True of course but I wish he hadn't said it.
Does mean that the concentration of business power in a shrinking number of hands is a problem. The more people and places that have power to offer interesting jobs, the more likely it is that people will be on the fringe of a network to get their foot in a door.
(So media as a career was almost certainly healthier when every large town/small city had a functioning newspaper and radio station.)
Another reminder that, especially overnight and at weekends, BBC News slavishly follows the US channels which is why we get so much American domestic news.
As an aside, one poignant detail from New York is that the police officer who was killed had immigrated from Bangladesh.
NEW THREAD
The other dimension is that it is easier for a government to bribe or threaten a mayor, using the political process (rather than the mafia one - unless the government does actually have the photos…) to offer or withhold funding, grants and permissions, than it is to do that to a whole council.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_gojozdxok
Essentially, employers are highly risk averse.
I've had very few opportunities that have come off from a chance chat at a conference or event, although sometimes it results in an exchange of business cards, and a follow-up coffee, email or chat.
So it is something like inevitable that the policy they pursue and the advisors they listen to come from one of the sides on an issue.