Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
Including YouTube in the list of banned 'social media' websites is going to be the governments biggest single own goal.
More people watch YouTube than the BBC.
Parents will go back to logging in as themselves for their kids rather than having a kids profile.
Which is counterproductive in many ways.
I used to do that and my algorithm became all the stuff my kids liked.
Plus it means kids will have unrestricted access, whereas my kids profiles are more restricted.
Insanity.
Indeed. Logging into unrestricted dangerous content for your children is insane.
Indeed, which is why we have a restricted kids profile set for them that is age-appropriate. More restricted than unrestricted, less restricted than YouTube Kids. Basically a 12 age rating.
If Kids accounts are blocked altogether then the choice will be unrestricted parental ones or no access, and many parents will choose the former.
Lets not forget who is giving access to devices and accounts today - it is parents.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
Who is proposing flogging the poor? I propose dealing with the poverty trap so nobody faces a hefty real tax rate, as people currently do. 🤦♂️
Real tax rates include the loss of benefits, not just actual taxes.
As for those on UC and working - yes those on UC and working are getting it due to a combination of either being part-timers, or parents. Both of which are legal, and neither of which is the employer's responsibility.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
Indeed, I propose the latter. As did Milton Friedman.
If you are left wing you can call it UBI. If you are right wing you can call it a Negative Income Tax (that's what Friedman called it).
I would merge benefits, NICs and Income Tax into a single system. No poverty trap then and work is always worthwhile.
Currently the highest real tax rates are faced by the poorest individuals. That is madness and needs fixing.
Including YouTube in the list of banned 'social media' websites is going to be the governments biggest single own goal.
More people watch YouTube than the BBC.
Parents will go back to logging in as themselves for their kids rather than having a kids profile.
Which is counterproductive in many ways.
I used to do that and my algorithm became all the stuff my kids liked.
Plus it means kids will have unrestricted access, whereas my kids profiles are more restricted.
Insanity.
Indeed. Logging into unrestricted dangerous content for your children is insane.
Indeed, which is why we have a restricted kids profile set for them that is age-appropriate. More restricted than unrestricted, less restricted than YouTube Kids. Basically a 12 age rating.
If Kids accounts are blocked altogether then the choice will be unrestricted parental ones or no access, and many parents will choose the former.
Lets not forget who is giving access to devices and accounts today - it is parents.
YouTube could respond by introducing YouTube Teens. YouTube can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, if they choose to be.
It's the social media companies who deliver platforms full of extremism, fraud and misinformation, and that are designed to be addictive. They could not do that. They have chosen to continue their ways. This is the result.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
Are we sure they don't mean YouTube Shorts / Youtube Live?
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
My daughter loves making short videos for TikTok. It is a nice, healthy, hobby for her and she gets very creative. She first did it to earn a badge with either Brownies or Guides.
Her videos are set to be private and only her mother and grandmother and a select few others even see it, because we exercise parental controls, but she gets very creative and has been learning skills.
All to be banned due to Luddites who want to roll the clock back on technology and want the nanny state to stop parents from parenting.
Another middle class moral panic promoted by lobbyists, aided and abetted by the old media railing against the new media and using people with sad real life experiences to act as emotional blackmail. Support this change or you support children being shown bad stuff.
Clown country.
Note that the problem relates to algorithms and doom scrolling.
My 17 year old (younger) daughter will give a clear and articulate case as to why those issue need to be dealt with.
Incidentally, she says there is some nasty stuff targeting those with ADHD and similar - trying to make them into rebels against "the system that has abandoned you" etc.
The thing is that most of this nasty targeted stuff is targeted in a way that means it’s not visible to other people. The thing about social media is that it’s both fragmented and massive so there is no way anyone can see exactly what someone else is seeing until it’s too late.
My legal requirement would be that an audit trail is provided that allows anyone to see exactly what was shown to someone else - attached to billion dollar fines for inability to provide it on demand within 30 seconds
Parents should then have access and the right to block things they don’t want visible
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Neither.
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Neither.
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
A point of agreement. Next step? Collect £10 from a UK claimant by reducing their benefits or getting Amazon, Deliveroo etc to pay more tax.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
Are we sure they don't mean YouTube Shorts / Youtube Live?
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
My daughter loves making short videos for TikTok. It is a nice, healthy, hobby for her and she gets very creative. She first did it to earn a badge with either Brownies or Guides.
Her videos are set to be private and only her mother and grandmother and a select few others even see it, because we exercise parental controls, but she gets very creative and has been learning skills.
All to be banned due to Luddites who want to roll the clock back on technology and want the nanny state to stop parents from parenting.
Another middle class moral panic promoted by lobbyists, aided and abetted by the old media railing against the new media and using people with sad real life experiences to act as emotional blackmail. Support this change or you support children being shown bad stuff.
Clown country.
Note that the problem relates to algorithms and doom scrolling.
My 17 year old (younger) daughter will give a clear and articulate case as to why those issue need to be dealt with.
Incidentally, she says there is some nasty stuff targeting those with ADHD and similar - trying to make them into rebels against "the system that has abandoned you" etc.
The thing is that most of this nasty targeted stuff is targeted in a way that means it’s not visible to other people. The thing about social media is that it’s both fragmented and massive so there is no way anyone can see exactly what someone else is seeing until it’s too late.
My legal requirement would be that an audit trail is provided that allows anyone to see exactly what was shown to someone else - attached to billion dollar fines for inability to provide it on demand within 30 seconds
Parents should then have access and the right to block things they don’t want visible
An audit trail that allows anyone to see exactly what was shown to someone else is a massive breach of privacy. Do I want people knowing how many Jago Hazzard videos I watched at the weekend?
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Neither.
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
A point of agreement. Next step? Collect £10 from a UK claimant by reducing their benefits or getting Amazon, Deliveroo etc to pay more tax.
Again, neither.
Eliminate the poverty trap, reduce the tax rates on claimants by merging benefits, NICs and Income Tax and see people work more and naturally pay more tax and claim less benefits but at a less draconian rate than today.
If possible Amazon etc should be paying taxes absolutely but that has nothing to do with the conversation and should be happening either way.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Neither.
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
Politicians are, o course, human beings and therefore there is a possibility of error.
"Police denied this arrest video existed - but it actually did
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
This goes back a long way - to the incident in 2021 - which is a very concerning aspect, and is very serious. The Chief Constable of Northants is on a sticky wicket.
I'm interested why this has resurfaced now. Is it perhaps a new programme or similar, or has the process moved on?
I am very much reminded of the case of Caroline Farrow I mentioned at the weekend.
I presume the sharing of the footage has been coordinated with/by her lawyers.
The case is an utter disgrace - the Police were breaking the law, were in contempt of court and it wasn't just an accident - it was deliberate and over a long period of time. The idea that the police simply pay a fine out the budget and keep on rolling is wrong.
Last time I saw this incident covered a few weeks ago it was around the very unusual nature of a Chief Constable being fined.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
Are we sure they don't mean YouTube Shorts / Youtube Live?
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
My daughter loves making short videos for TikTok. It is a nice, healthy, hobby for her and she gets very creative. She first did it to earn a badge with either Brownies or Guides.
Her videos are set to be private and only her mother and grandmother and a select few others even see it, because we exercise parental controls, but she gets very creative and has been learning skills.
All to be banned due to Luddites who want to roll the clock back on technology and want the nanny state to stop parents from parenting.
Another middle class moral panic promoted by lobbyists, aided and abetted by the old media railing against the new media and using people with sad real life experiences to act as emotional blackmail. Support this change or you support children being shown bad stuff.
Clown country.
Note that the problem relates to algorithms and doom scrolling.
My 17 year old (younger) daughter will give a clear and articulate case as to why those issue need to be dealt with.
Incidentally, she says there is some nasty stuff targeting those with ADHD and similar - trying to make them into rebels against "the system that has abandoned you" etc.
The thing is that most of this nasty targeted stuff is targeted in a way that means it’s not visible to other people. The thing about social media is that it’s both fragmented and massive so there is no way anyone can see exactly what someone else is seeing until it’s too late.
My legal requirement would be that an audit trail is provided that allows anyone to see exactly what was shown to someone else - attached to billion dollar fines for inability to provide it on demand within 30 seconds
Parents should then have access and the right to block things they don’t want visible
An audit trail that allows anyone to see exactly what was shown to someone else is a massive breach of privacy. Do I want people knowing how many Jago Hazzard videos I watched at the weekend?
By anyone I actually meant police and parents - but the point is that audit trail would allow you to work out how the person was radicalized or allow parents to see what needs to be blocked
"Police denied this arrest video existed - but it actually did
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
This goes back a long way - to the incident in 2021 - which is a very concerning aspect, and is very serious. The Chief Constable of Northants is on a sticky wicket.
I'm interested why this has resurfaced now. Is it perhaps a new programme or similar, or has the process moved on?
I am very much reminded of the case of Caroline Farrow I mentioned at the weekend.
I presume the sharing of the footage has been coordinated with/by her lawyers.
The case is an utter disgrace - the Police were breaking the law, were in contempt of court and it wasn't just an accident - it was deliberate and over a long period of time. The idea that the police simply pay a fine out the budget and keep on rolling is wrong.
Last time I saw this incident covered a few weeks ago it was around the very unusual nature of a Chief Constable being fined.
There is an ongoing IOPC investigation into the police. It does, on the face of it, appear to be shocking behaviour by the police.
(However, Buzzard-Quashie isn't white, so the Mail, Telegraph, Farage, Jenrick and Lowe aren't interested.)
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Neither.
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
A point of agreement. Next step? Collect £10 from a UK claimant by reducing their benefits or getting Amazon, Deliveroo etc to pay more tax.
Again, neither.
Eliminate the poverty trap, reduce the tax rates on claimants by merging benefits, NICs and Income Tax and see people work more and naturally pay more tax and claim less benefits but at a less draconian rate than today.
If possible Amazon etc should be paying taxes absolutely but that has nothing to do with the conversation and should be happening either way.
The problem is you can’t fix that from here. Reduce the UC taper and you will end up with people earning £40,000 still being on UC which means other people earning that money with similar children should be receiving it.
As we’ve argued before reducing the taper is far more expensive than it looks as it widens the net
"Police denied this arrest video existed - but it actually did
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
This goes back a long way - to the incident in 2021 - which is a very concerning aspect, and is very serious. The Chief Constable of Northants is on a sticky wicket.
I'm interested why this has resurfaced now. Is it perhaps a new programme or similar, or has the process moved on?
I am very much reminded of the case of Caroline Farrow I mentioned at the weekend.
I presume the sharing of the footage has been coordinated with/by her lawyers.
The case is an utter disgrace - the Police were breaking the law, were in contempt of court and it wasn't just an accident - it was deliberate and over a long period of time. The idea that the police simply pay a fine out the budget and keep on rolling is wrong.
Last time I saw this incident covered a few weeks ago it was around the very unusual nature of a Chief Constable being fined.
Personally, I would have gone for actual jail time for the Chief Constable.
Which would mean that he would lose his job and not be able to be employed in the police in future.
On the social media ban, it’s baffling to me that the government aren’t encouraging Apple and Google to do on-device age verification which is extremely secure and would only have to be done once.
Apple already has the technology to do this.
Ofcom and I'd also say the government plainly do not know what they are doing. Both Apple and Google have got the means to do biometric authentication of a zero-knowledge proof of the possession of an mDoc (like a passport or driving licence). That is about as good as it is possible to get. Every other scheme is either more intrusive, less secure, or more likely to fail (too many false negatives or positives).
The approach the government has advocated to date is to share PII (Personally Identifiable Information) with anyone who asks for it all day long. This is the exact opposite of what you would want from a security or privacy perspective. There must be people in government who know that this is a disaster in the making, but the government seems way to keen to listen to the spivs flogging all sorts of dubious age verification schemes.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
On that analysis I would reform the Eton CCF as the "Eton Trifles", and send them to work at lunchtime in a local primary.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Neither.
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
A point of agreement. Next step? Collect £10 from a UK claimant by reducing their benefits or getting Amazon, Deliveroo etc to pay more tax.
Again, neither.
Eliminate the poverty trap, reduce the tax rates on claimants by merging benefits, NICs and Income Tax and see people work more and naturally pay more tax and claim less benefits but at a less draconian rate than today.
If possible Amazon etc should be paying taxes absolutely but that has nothing to do with the conversation and should be happening either way.
The problem is you can’t fix that from here. Reduce the UC taper and you will end up with people earning £40,000 still being on UC which means other people earning that money with similar children should be receiving it.
As we’ve argued before reducing the taper is far more expensive than it looks as it widens the net
Do not reduce the taper, eliminate it all together. No taper.
Merge benefits and taxes into a single system, with only one tax rate.
Yes it is expensive, but it is also the right thing to do. The poorest should not be on the most tax.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
On that analysis I would reform the Eton CCF as the "Eton Trifles", and send them to work at lunchtime in a local primary.
Haven't the scruffy tikes of the great unwashed suffered enough?
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Neither.
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
A point of agreement. Next step? Collect £10 from a UK claimant by reducing their benefits or getting Amazon, Deliveroo etc to pay more tax.
Again, neither.
Eliminate the poverty trap, reduce the tax rates on claimants by merging benefits, NICs and Income Tax and see people work more and naturally pay more tax and claim less benefits but at a less draconian rate than today.
If possible Amazon etc should be paying taxes absolutely but that has nothing to do with the conversation and should be happening either way.
The problem is you can’t fix that from here. Reduce the UC taper and you will end up with people earning £40,000 still being on UC which means other people earning that money with similar children should be receiving it.
As we’ve argued before reducing the taper is far more expensive than it looks as it widens the net
Decided to have a look at the taper and the last change (Rishi) and the evidence collected prior to announcing the change.
TLDR: It's a mess and as complex as HMRC's tax codes. There are so many variations of what can be achieved (In work /out of work / type of illness / work allowance before tape) that it's impossible to generalise.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
I agree, they should be. The problem is they overwhelmingly haven't been doing their job. So reluctancly I agree with Stamer's decision.
I don't think even Australia banned YouTube. Starmer going that far is absolutely bonkers authoritarianism.
A generation of kids is going to know how to set up VPNs very rapidly, if they don't already.
I would far rather be able to monitor what my kids are doing, with them doing it openly using official apps, than masked via browsers and VPNs.
Utter insanity.
I've mentioned this before but Radio 5 interviewed an Australian girl and her parents before the social media ban was begun there. A few months later Radio 5 spoke to her again to see what difference the ban had made, and as far as she was aware every one of her friends was still on social media.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
We effectively had that at school at weekends. The regular house staff apart from the cooks didn’t work at weekends so the house was staffed for cleaning and serving lunch by local girls who attended sixth forms. They were affectionately called the “Tea Tarts” but everyone was otherwise totally respectful and well behaved and polite towards them.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
The sentences are fine - but the jurors should have been told what they were actually charged without the terrorism bits hidden from them.
Mitigating and aggravating factors aren't normally put before jurors are they? Indeed its often illegal to do so, as it can prejudice the jury either way.
Maybe they should be in all cases, but perverse to complain about just this one.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.
The marginal cost of adding 2 kids is very small. A few extra books etc.
The state funds schools per pupil though, so the school will benefit a lot from the additional resource.
The other fallacy, above, is the classic OR fail of "This marginal cost/load on the organisation can be met with no increase in resources".
Yeah, 2 more kids in the corner of the class might not seem like extra work to some. But state schools are deliberately run at 99%+ capacity. And teachers will bloody notice 2 more kids.
If15 parents in the whole catchment area do the same - a whole new class is required.
Its not no increase in resources, its about £6k/pupil. Hugely beneficial for a school and far in excess of cost of teaching an additional student.
The sentences are fine - but the jurors should have been told what they were actually charged without the terrorism bits hidden from them.
Mitigating and aggravating factors aren't normally put before jurors are they? Indeed its often illegal to do so, as it can prejudice the jury either way.
Maybe they should be in all cases, but perverse to complain about just this one.
It isn’t an aggravating factor - it’s a whole different law they’ve been sentenced under. If you are going to use a jury they really should be allowed to decide if it’s terrorism or criminal damage and it should be up to the prosecution to argue the point.
Just had a new experience. Hail storm in June. Bit of a surprise.
Loud clap of thunder over Ilford around 7am, but no rain. Strange!
It's all moved N-Eastward, up here. Poured down at 11.30am. Met Office map suggests we'll have a short dry spell, which is what seems to be happening outside my window now, then another burst, and after 2 or so it'll clear up.
Assuming the reporting is accurate, I don't think this is a good enough response to either the ministerial resignations or the military threats the country faces.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Made two points. The first was the the gateway is not a gateway as there is a second check. The other point was wage rates in the UK. The numbers on UC who are actually in work indicates low pay rates - unless these are slackers. The other point is that there are a lot of non-working UC claimants who are ill, waiting for an NHS appointment or caring for others. It's not black and white but if you have the time, why not volunteer at a benefit charity and tell these people that it's all to do with tax rates. You'll find they are both economically rational and numerate.
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
I don't think Bart wants to flog the poor! (You'll have to check with @Sandpit whether he does.)
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
I'll try to narrow it further. Do Amazon, Deliveroo and UC claimants act in an economically rational manner? What's in it for Amazon to pay more tax than legislation allows? And should UC claimants, claim less than legislation allows?
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
Neither.
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
A point of agreement. Next step? Collect £10 from a UK claimant by reducing their benefits or getting Amazon, Deliveroo etc to pay more tax.
Again, neither.
Eliminate the poverty trap, reduce the tax rates on claimants by merging benefits, NICs and Income Tax and see people work more and naturally pay more tax and claim less benefits but at a less draconian rate than today.
If possible Amazon etc should be paying taxes absolutely but that has nothing to do with the conversation and should be happening either way.
The problem is you can’t fix that from here. Reduce the UC taper and you will end up with people earning £40,000 still being on UC which means other people earning that money with similar children should be receiving it.
As we’ve argued before reducing the taper is far more expensive than it looks as it widens the net
Decided to have a look at the taper and the last change (Rishi) and the evidence collected prior to announcing the change.
TLDR: It's a mess and as complex as HMRC's tax codes. There are so many variations of what can be achieved (In work /out of work / type of illness / work allowance before tape) that it's impossible to generalise.
So we expect some of the poorest and least educated in society to make the decisions we wan them to, when confronted by a tax/benefit system that makes my head hurt?
I've sat down with people trying to get out of the limited hours trap - work out a plan by which they can take on more hours and get a promotion, which rapidly gets them past the loss in income. I was fucking terrified that I was getting it wrong and they would lose more money. Me. The bravery of those prepared to go for it and taking on that challenge.
We should be throwing them a parade, not imposing insane effective tax rates.
Including YouTube in the list of banned 'social media' websites is going to be the governments biggest single own goal.
More people watch YouTube than the BBC.
If an under 16 'ban' worked, what it would actually mean is that parents would be allowed to parent by using their own access to YouTube etc to regulate what their under 16s watched. In just the same way that parents might regulate and supervise teenagers access to and use of alcohol - which they can consume but can't purchase.
The principle is sound. But it actually working is unlikely.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.
The marginal cost of adding 2 kids is very small. A few extra books etc.
The state funds schools per pupil though, so the school will benefit a lot from the additional resource.
The other fallacy, above, is the classic OR fail of "This marginal cost/load on the organisation can be met with no increase in resources".
Yeah, 2 more kids in the corner of the class might not seem like extra work to some. But state schools are deliberately run at 99%+ capacity. And teachers will bloody notice 2 more kids.
If15 parents in the whole catchment area do the same - a whole new class is required.
Its not no increase in resources, its about £6k/pupil. Hugely beneficial for a school and far in excess of cost of teaching an additional student.
Pupil numbers have been falling in state schools.
The original comment was that 2 extra pupils doesn't cost very much. I was pointing out that they do indeed cost 6K a pop, and that the government having to spring for that is exactly how the system should work.
I'm glad that you think that 2 extra pupils isn't very much work. Are you teaching them? I've not heard many teachers say that extra pupils aren't extra work....
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
We effectively had that at school at weekends. The regular house staff apart from the cooks didn’t work at weekends so the house was staffed for cleaning and serving lunch by local girls who attended sixth forms. They were affectionately called the “Tea Tarts” but everyone was otherwise totally respectful and well behaved and polite towards them.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
On that analysis I would reform the Eton CCF as the "Eton Trifles", and send them to work at lunchtime in a local primary.
Haven't the scruffy tikes of the great unwashed suffered enough?
We should not be abandoning the likes of Boris Johnson, What-Ho Rees-Mogg and Rory Stewart to a life of futile indolence, and political scheming.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
On that analysis I would reform the Eton CCF as the "Eton Trifles", and send them to work at lunchtime in a local primary.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.
The marginal cost of adding 2 kids is very small. A few extra books etc.
The state funds schools per pupil though, so the school will benefit a lot from the additional resource.
The other fallacy, above, is the classic OR fail of "This marginal cost/load on the organisation can be met with no increase in resources".
Yeah, 2 more kids in the corner of the class might not seem like extra work to some. But state schools are deliberately run at 99%+ capacity. And teachers will bloody notice 2 more kids.
If15 parents in the whole catchment area do the same - a whole new class is required.
Its not no increase in resources, its about £6k/pupil. Hugely beneficial for a school and far in excess of cost of teaching an additional student.
Pupil numbers have been falling in state schools.
The original comment was that 2 extra pupils doesn't cost very much. I was pointing out that they do indeed cost 6K a pop, and that the government having to spring for that is exactly how the system should work.
I'm glad that you think that 2 extra pupils isn't very much work. Are you teaching them? I've not heard many teachers say that extra pupils aren't extra work....
It costs the state 6k extra/pupil. It costs the school much less than that to add an additional pupil. It's therefore financially beneficial for the school to have additional pupils.
I think this clear but perhaps I'm not explaining myself well.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
On that analysis I would reform the Eton CCF as the "Eton Trifles", and send them to work at lunchtime in a local primary.
What a sorry sponge you turned out to be ...
They should get Molesworth and his school chums in.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
On that analysis I would reform the Eton CCF as the "Eton Trifles", and send them to work at lunchtime in a local primary.
What a sorry sponge you turned out to be ...
They should get Molesworth and his school chums in.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
I agree, they should be. The problem is they overwhelmingly haven't been doing their job. So reluctancly I agree with Stamer's decision.
I don't think even Australia banned YouTube. Starmer going that far is absolutely bonkers authoritarianism.
A generation of kids is going to know how to set up VPNs very rapidly, if they don't already.
I would far rather be able to monitor what my kids are doing, with them doing it openly using official apps, than masked via browsers and VPNs.
Utter insanity.
I've mentioned this before but Radio 5 interviewed an Australian girl and her parents before the social media ban was begun there. A few months later Radio 5 spoke to her again to see what difference the ban had made, and as far as she was aware every one of her friends was still on social media.
But now with a greater knowledge on how IT works, useful skills for the future!
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
We effectively had that at school at weekends. The regular house staff apart from the cooks didn’t work at weekends so the house was staffed for cleaning and serving lunch by local girls who attended sixth forms. They were affectionately called the “Tea Tarts” but everyone was otherwise totally respectful and well behaved and polite towards them.
I can only assume that this is satire.
Not in my experience. At the Public School nearest to me many of the waiting on jobs, even on weekday evenings are filled by pupils from the state comprehensive. This leaves a real problem when the public school offers classes for obscure subjects such as Latin to state school pupils. How can you have a class where some of the pupils really do wait on the others. Interestingly the state school head, some twenty years ago refused such offers for that very reason and was widely vilified. She was right IMHO
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
We effectively had that at school at weekends. The regular house staff apart from the cooks didn’t work at weekends so the house was staffed for cleaning and serving lunch by local girls who attended sixth forms. They were affectionately called the “Tea Tarts” but everyone was otherwise totally respectful and well behaved and polite towards them.
I can only assume that this is satire.
Not in my experience. At the Public School nearest to me many of the waiting on jobs, even on weekday evenings are filled by pupils from the state comprehensive. This leaves a real problem when the public school offers classes for obscure subjects such as Latin to state school pupils. How can you have a class where some of the pupils really do wait on the others. Interestingly the state school head, some twenty years ago refused such offers for that very reason and was widely vilified. She was right IMHO
One of my best friends was offered a free place for their grandson at the said public school to which they retorted, No, we want him to be more than a bartender in a pub.
Assuming the reporting is accurate, I don't think this is a good enough response to either the ministerial resignations or the military threats the country faces.
Sir Keir Starmer has become a kind of urinal that people use to relieve themselves whilst signalling their wisdom, strength and virtue. It's all a bit the opposite of admirable.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
It was politically motivated, so yes.
Being politically motivated is not the definition of terrorism in British law or in most places.
(There is a separate question of why committing GBH for a political reason is worse than doing it for any other reason.)
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
We effectively had that at school at weekends. The regular house staff apart from the cooks didn’t work at weekends so the house was staffed for cleaning and serving lunch by local girls who attended sixth forms. They were affectionately called the “Tea Tarts” but everyone was otherwise totally respectful and well behaved and polite towards them.
I can only assume that this is satire.
Not in my experience. At the Public School nearest to me many of the waiting on jobs, even on weekday evenings are filled by pupils from the state comprehensive. This leaves a real problem when the public school offers classes for obscure subjects such as Latin to state school pupils. How can you have a class where some of the pupils really do wait on the others. Interestingly the state school head, some twenty years ago refused such offers for that very reason and was widely vilified. She was right IMHO
One of my best friends was offered a free place for their grandson at the said public school to which they retorted, No, we want him to be more than a bartender in a pub.
Hmmm. Genuine question.
How much autonomy do schools in the UK have over their school dinner organisation?
Could something like the Japanese model be tried here?
We already have something of an emphasis on locally produced ingredients? That may be easier in say Wales, where free meals are universal (or moving that way).
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
It was politically motivated, so yes.
Being politically motivated is not the definition of terrorism in British law or in most places.
(There is a separate question of why committing GBH for a political reason is worse than doing it for any other reason.)
See my last post. Terrorism Act is quite specific as far as I can see.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
It was politically motivated, so yes.
Were any of the far right rioters of recent times charged or sentenced as terrorists?
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
It was politically motivated, so yes.
Being politically motivated is not the definition of terrorism in British law or in most places.
(There is a separate question of why committing GBH for a political reason is worse than doing it for any other reason.)
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
That’s not an unfair comment, but Palestine Action would say that we’re not selling arms to Iran, which was the motivation for their “direct action”.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
It seems to me that most non activists who possess a conscience about the world broadly want to support good people across every divide and oppose bad people across every divide also. This must be the largest tribe in existence, and for various reasons impossible to turn into a 'cause' with any meaning. This may explain their non activism. FWIW it mostly explains my approach to things.
But it means that the tribal factionalists do most of the organising and most of the propaganda and claim the attention.
It’s rather essential given the capacity issues the WCML is under
It's the Birmingham to Crewe bit that's most essential (although it should still go to Manchester, and Leeds)
Except the trains are different so we end up with the current mess where different trains are required and are now being bought via an attempt to change the contract.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
That’s not an unfair comment, but Palestine Action would say that we’re not selling arms to Iran, which was the motivation for their “direct action”.
We do buy a vast amount from China who appear to be in the process of winding down their Uyghur population tho’. There hasn’t been any noise there. Not even a little bit of flag burning.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
He hasn't got the sentence for his politics but because he is a **** who broke a copper's back. I would have given him far longer.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
It was politically motivated, so yes.
Being politically motivated is not the definition of terrorism in British law or in most places.
(There is a separate question of why committing GBH for a political reason is worse than doing it for any other reason.)
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
Yes, those are a subset of all political motivations. Having a political motivation in and of itself is not terrorism.
(b) is the usual definition and (c) is a broader definition. “Terrorism” is a term used inconsistently and politically and debatably has little practical use as a result.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
That’s not an unfair comment, but Palestine Action would say that we’re not selling arms to Iran, which was the motivation for their “direct action”.
Though one has to wonder how keen they are on campaigning against those who do sell arms to Iran. Being open to certain questions and closed to other parallel ones is one of the principal ways of being tribal and factional. This is done just as much on the right as on the left.
Non barking dogs tend to disclose hidden agendas, as Sherlock Holmes nearly said.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
That’s not an unfair comment, but Palestine Action would say that we’re not selling arms to Iran, which was the motivation for their “direct action”.
We do buy a vast amount from China who appear to be in the process of winding down their Uyghur population tho’. There hasn’t been any noise there. Not even a little bit of flag burning.
We buy large amounts of stuff from all sorts of unsavoury regimes, but we don't normally allow them to set up companies to make equipment for their militaries in the UK. Israel gets a free pass on this, which is what pisses people off.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
I cannot hear the words "direct action" without implicitly adding the preceding words "non-violent" to them.
It was always, always, always "non-violent direct action".
Including YouTube in the list of banned 'social media' websites is going to be the governments biggest single own goal.
More people watch YouTube than the BBC.
I would not be surprised if the BBC pulled some strings to get YouTube included. But if this dogs mess of a policy survives the defenestration of Starmer I expect YouTube will challenge it in court, the UK is one of their biggest markets.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
We effectively had that at school at weekends. The regular house staff apart from the cooks didn’t work at weekends so the house was staffed for cleaning and serving lunch by local girls who attended sixth forms. They were affectionately called the “Tea Tarts” but everyone was otherwise totally respectful and well behaved and polite towards them.
I can only assume that this is satire.
Not in my experience. At the Public School nearest to me many of the waiting on jobs, even on weekday evenings are filled by pupils from the state comprehensive. This leaves a real problem when the public school offers classes for obscure subjects such as Latin to state school pupils. How can you have a class where some of the pupils really do wait on the others. Interestingly the state school head, some twenty years ago refused such offers for that very reason and was widely vilified. She was right IMHO
One of my best friends was offered a free place for their grandson at the said public school to which they retorted, No, we want him to be more than a bartender in a pub.
Hmmm. Genuine question.
How much autonomy do schools in the UK have over their school dinner organisation?
Could something like the Japanese model be tried here?
We already have something of an emphasis on locally produced ingredients? That may be easier in say Wales, where free meals are universal (or moving that way).
Quite a lot.
There are places that have gone down the "make school lunches civilised" route. One of the usual suspects describes it here
but less fringey places do it as well. The primary Things 1 and 2 went to did a less assertive version of the same thing- no managed conversation topics.
It’s rather essential given the capacity issues the WCML is under
It's the Birmingham to Crewe bit that's most essential (although it should still go to Manchester, and Leeds)
Except the trains are different so we end up with the current mess where different trains are required and are now being bought via an attempt to change the contract.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
It was politically motivated, so yes.
Were any of the far right rioters of recent times charged or sentenced as terrorists?
I think Yaxley-Lennon was arrested for terrorism offences the other day. Rightly so.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
That’s not an unfair comment, but Palestine Action would say that we’re not selling arms to Iran, which was the motivation for their “direct action”.
Though one has to wonder how keen they are on campaigning against those who do sell arms to Iran. Being open to certain questions and closed to other parallel ones is one of the principal ways of being tribal and factional. This is done just as much on the right as on the left.
Non barking dogs tend to disclose hidden agendas, as Sherlock Holmes nearly said.
You may be right that some protestors are acting tribally or factionally. Others may have personal reasons for being more interested in one situation than another. However, on your specific point, I’m not aware of anyone in the UK selling arms to Iran.
The UK treats Israel as, more or less, an ally and Iran as the enemy. Many of the pro-Palestine protests are, thus, about trying to change the policy of the UK and the policy of companies in the UK in a way that doesn’t apply to Iran (although arguably does to, say, Xinjiang).
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Do you have a quote? Or is this from an Albanian black cab driver?
I'm not fully in one camp or the other on the social media ban. However, I've realised I'm utterly relaxed about it because, like almost everything the government announces, it's going to be backtracked-on, u-turned, u-turned again, filibustered and ultimately abandoned.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
That’s not an unfair comment, but Palestine Action would say that we’re not selling arms to Iran, which was the motivation for their “direct action”.
We do buy a vast amount from China who appear to be in the process of winding down their Uyghur population tho’. There hasn’t been any noise there. Not even a little bit of flag burning.
I would agree with you that the Uyghurs’ plight attracts insufficient attention, but I will note that there have been and are protests about it. There was one in January: https://www.instagram.com/p/DTn7sf_DKm-/
Under 3 years additional time for Corner is a complete insult imv, personally I'd have been happier if he'd received at least an additional 6 years and the others sentences dropped by 2 from where they are currently at. The courts have taken our relationship with Israel more seriously than someone trying to smash a copper's back in with a sledgehammer.
I'm not fully in one camp or the other on the social media ban. However, I've realised I'm utterly relaxed about it because, like almost everything the government announces, it's going to be backtracked-on, u-turned, u-turned again, filibustered and ultimately abandoned.
You forgot the option of implementing it stupidly, then adding more and more stupid and unworkable provisions onto the law. Repeat over many years.
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Do you have a quote? Or is this from an Albanian black cab driver?
Some irony in PB’s chief anecdotalist asking for verification.
The Lady Chief Justice: Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property
The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.
Comments
And why should companies like Amazon and Deliveroo get passess for either not paying a decent wage or avoiding paying tax. Far more important issues than flogging the poor.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-8-january-2026/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-8-january-2026
The BBC made a social media guy there new DG in order to catch up. Indeed, I think there is plan to roll out BBC content on YouTube?
What does Nandy think of the new under 16 ban?
If Kids accounts are blocked altogether then the choice will be unrestricted parental ones or no access, and many parents will choose the former.
Lets not forget who is giving access to devices and accounts today - it is parents.
The problem with removing the poverty trap is that you either have to reduce benefits for those getting them (who probably need them and aren't going to be happy with them being reduced), or increase benefits for those not getting them (who are less needy and how do you meet the bill) or both.
Real tax rates include the loss of benefits, not just actual taxes.
As for those on UC and working - yes those on UC and working are getting it due to a combination of either being part-timers, or parents. Both of which are legal, and neither of which is the employer's responsibility.
How many full-time childless couples get UC?
If you are left wing you can call it UBI. If you are right wing you can call it a Negative Income Tax (that's what Friedman called it).
I would merge benefits, NICs and Income Tax into a single system. No poverty trap then and work is always worthwhile.
Currently the highest real tax rates are faced by the poorest individuals. That is madness and needs fixing.
It's the social media companies who deliver platforms full of extremism, fraud and misinformation, and that are designed to be addictive. They could not do that. They have chosen to continue their ways. This is the result.
If there are poverty traps, and holes in the tax regime who is to blame. A UC claimant or a CEO.
My legal requirement would be that an audit trail is provided that allows anyone to see exactly what was shown to someone else - attached to billion dollar fines for inability to provide it on demand within 30 seconds
Parents should then have access and the right to block things they don’t want visible
The politicians are to blame for creating the system.
Eliminate the poverty trap, reduce the tax rates on claimants by merging benefits, NICs and Income Tax and see people work more and naturally pay more tax and claim less benefits but at a less draconian rate than today.
If possible Amazon etc should be paying taxes absolutely but that has nothing to do with the conversation and should be happening either way.
(However, Buzzard-Quashie isn't white, so the Mail, Telegraph, Farage, Jenrick and Lowe aren't interested.)
As we’ve argued before reducing the taper is far more expensive than it looks as it widens the net
Which would mean that he would lose his job and not be able to be employed in the police in future.
Court of appeal finds Palestine Action ban lawful
The approach the government has advocated to date is to share PII (Personally Identifiable Information) with anyone who asks for it all day long. This is the exact opposite of what you would want from a security or privacy perspective. There must be people in government who know that this is a disaster in the making, but the government seems way to keen to listen to the spivs flogging all sorts of dubious age verification schemes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg48qqwkd2o
Finally safe from doorstepping for all my frauds.
Merge benefits and taxes into a single system, with only one tax rate.
Yes it is expensive, but it is also the right thing to do. The poorest should not be on the most tax.
And you can recalculate rates so it balances.
TLDR: It's a mess and as complex as HMRC's tax codes. There are so many variations of what can be achieved (In work /out of work / type of illness / work allowance before tape) that it's impossible to generalise.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/reducing-the-universal-credit-taper-rate-and-the-effect-on-incomes/
Good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
Maybe they should be in all cases, but perverse to complain about just this one.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Pupil numbers have been falling in state schools.
@theipaper
Andy Burnham: I’ll resurrect HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester
https://x.com/theipaper/status/2066393741309440087
The first thing I have heard from Burnham that makes sense.
Luke Akehurst
@lukeakehurst
Assuming the reporting is accurate, I don't think this is a good enough response to either the ministerial resignations or the military threats the country faces.
https://x.com/lukeakehurst/status/2066416889899729316
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
I've sat down with people trying to get out of the limited hours trap - work out a plan by which they can take on more hours and get a promotion, which rapidly gets them past the loss in income. I was fucking terrified that I was getting it wrong and they would lose more money. Me. The bravery of those prepared to go for it and taking on that challenge.
We should be throwing them a parade, not imposing insane effective tax rates.
The principle is sound. But it actually working is unlikely.
I'm glad that you think that 2 extra pupils isn't very much work. Are you teaching them? I've not heard many teachers say that extra pupils aren't extra work....
There may be hope.
I think this clear but perhaps I'm not explaining myself well.
From St Custard's.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(There is a separate question of why committing GBH for a political reason is worse than doing it for any other reason.)
How much autonomy do schools in the UK have over their school dinner organisation?
Could something like the Japanese model be tried here?
We already have something of an emphasis on locally produced ingredients? That may be easier in say Wales, where free meals are universal (or moving that way).
Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
But it means that the tribal factionalists do most of the organising and most of the propaganda and claim the attention.
(b) is the usual definition and (c) is a broader definition. “Terrorism” is a term used inconsistently and politically and debatably has little practical use as a result.
Non barking dogs tend to disclose hidden agendas, as Sherlock Holmes nearly said.
It was always, always, always "non-violent direct action".
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
There are places that have gone down the "make school lunches civilised" route. One of the usual suspects describes it here
https://www.michaela.education/about-us/family-lunch
but less fringey places do it as well. The primary Things 1 and 2 went to did a less assertive version of the same thing- no managed conversation topics.
The UK treats Israel as, more or less, an ally and Iran as the enemy. Many of the pro-Palestine protests are, thus, about trying to change the policy of the UK and the policy of companies in the UK in a way that doesn’t apply to Iran (although arguably does to, say, Xinjiang).
The Lady Chief Justice: Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property
The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.
https://x.com/saulstaniforth/status/2066474811598016962?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q