I got on Javid as next leader at 60, the other day.
Only yesterday I got a few quid on him for next Prime Minister at 80/90 (which looked like a good proxy bet to me for further short term advancement without all the awkwardness of losing your stake if he was overlooked). I must thank Mr Nabavi in particular for reminding me of his virtues.
He's still available at 25. I suspect in a few weeks, assuming no alarums or excursions in the interim, he'll be in the teens. The holders of the great offices of state have to be taken seriously.
I got on Javid as next leader at 60, the other day.
Only yesterday I got a few quid on him for next Prime Minister at 80/90 (which looked like a good proxy bet to me for further short term advancement without all the awkwardness of losing your stake if he was overlooked). I must thank Mr Nabavi in particular for reminding me of his virtues.
He's still available at 25. I suspect in a few weeks, assuming no alarums or excursions in the interim, he'll be in the teens. The holders of the great offices of state have to be taken seriously.
Although to become PM he will need to survive being at Home.
Mr. Tyndall, then change your behaviour. Eat less, eat better, exercise more. Why should the whole nation's taxation change because of your own circumstance? [I do hope you remain in good health, incidentally].
Mr. Flashman (deceased), agree entirely on Morgan.
Ms. Anazina, if prostitution (or drugs) were legalised that would mean the service and products would simply fall under existing taxation on work and sales.
Because my circumstances now match that officer 50% of the population. Refined sugar is almost certainly a bigger killer than either cigarettes or alcohol. Those who partake of such vices should pay for the consequent costs to the State.
The question will really be how much freedom of manoeuvre does he have to change the policy or introduce an amnesty/an easy process to regularise existing but undocumented rights? I think this depends how much May was doing her job under pressure from Cameron and how much she really believed in what she was doing. I am not optimistic. She is instinctively authoritarian.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard. Or sex as a way of paying to be smuggled into Europe.
The left should be rightly worried if Javid makes more of a name and is successful in the Home office. They'd hate it if the Tories got a BAME leader/PM first.
The question will really be how much freedom of manoeuvre does he have to change the policy or introduce an amnesty/an easy process to regularise existing but undocumented rights? I think this depends how much May was doing her job under pressure from Cameron and how much she really believed in what she was doing. I am not optimistic. She is instinctively authoritarian.
He has quite a lot of power at the moment. May cannot afford to be seen fighting with her new Home Secretary - who thus can set the agenda for the Home Office as he sees fit. Certainly, for now, Javid is in the driving seat when it comes to these agenda items.
Mr. Tyndall, then change your behaviour. Eat less, eat better, exercise more. Why should the whole nation's taxation change because of your own circumstance? [I do hope you remain in good health, incidentally].
Mr. Flashman (deceased), agree entirely on Morgan.
Ms. Anazina, if prostitution (or drugs) were legalised that would mean the service and products would simply fall under existing taxation on work and sales.
Because my circumstances now match that officer 50% of the population. Refined sugar is almost certainly a bigger killer than either cigarettes or alcohol. Those who partake of such vices should pay for the consequent costs to the State.
Sorry typing on the phone that should say "that of over 50%"
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
Or sex as a way of paying to be smuggled into Europe.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord?
Re the recent knife murders in London, someone (maybe Cressida Dick) said that those middle class drug users might want to think about the consequences of their habit, making the link between the latter and the realities of the drugs trade. Well, the same might be said about those who use prostitutes and like to think that prostitutes are "empowered women" and the realities of people trafficking, multiple rapes, drug use, abuse of under-age girls, violence to prevent them escaping etc.
The counter argument is that prostitution is like Prohibition: the fact that it's illegal is exactly why it is criminal gangs who control it.
Same for burglary and theft and fraud.
Your Prohibition example does not work. No-one is seeking to ban sex. But stopping the abuse of women is a good thing. Legalising one form of it is a funny way of doing that.
The question will really be how much freedom of manoeuvre does he have to change the policy or introduce an amnesty/an easy process to regularise existing but undocumented rights? I think this depends how much May was doing her job under pressure from Cameron and how much she really believed in what she was doing. I am not optimistic. She is instinctively authoritarian.
He has quite a lot of power at the moment. May cannot afford to be seen fighting with her new Home Secretary - who thus can set the agenda for the Home Office as he sees fit. Certainly, for now, Javid is in the driving seat when it comes to these agenda items.
I agree. But it depends on what was agreed when he took the post. It also needs him to seize the moment. I fear many Tories are seriously underestimating how they are being perceived outside the bubble about this. Just because people want lower net migration does not mean that they will tolerate people being treated unfairly.
The left should be rightly worried if Javid makes more of a name and is successful in the Home office. They'd hate it if the Tories got a BAME leader/PM first.
Lady Luck, evil minx that she is, will probably ensure that the next few months are taken up with multiple and varied security issues, at which point people will start wondering why we don't have a Cabinet Minister up to the job of dealing with such things........
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord?
Re the recent knife murders in London, someone (maybe Cressida Dick) said that those middle class drug users might want to think about the consequences of their habit, making the link between the latter and the realities of the drugs trade. Well, the same might be said about those who use prostitutes and like to think that prostitutes are "empowered women" and the realities of people trafficking, multiple rapes, drug use, abuse of under-age girls, violence to prevent them escaping etc.
The counter argument is that prostitution is like Prohibition: the fact that it's illegal is exactly why it is criminal gangs who control it.
Same for burglary and theft and fraud.
Your Prohibition example does not work. No-one is seeking to ban sex. But stopping the abuse of women is a good thing. Legalising one form of it is a funny way of doing that.
Prostitution does not just involve women. There are plenty of male sex workers - many of whom are also sufferers of abuse.
Interesting. The Remain voice within the Cabinet is clearly weakened by Rudd being replaced by Javid. The question is, how much will the parliamentary opposition to Brexit be strengthened by Rudd's departure? May would be wise to try and shore up her parliamentary position by using the opportunity for a second tier ministerial reshuffle to bring one or two of the parliamentary Custom Union advocates into ministerial positions.
The left should be rightly worried if Javid makes more of a name and is successful in the Home office. They'd hate it if the Tories got a BAME leader/PM first.
The vitriol that is going to be poured on an ethnic minority Home Sec will be nothing like we've seen before.
The left think every ethnic minority should be supporting them by rights and if they don't they are somehow traitors to all ethnic minority Britons.
Javid should delete his Twitter account before it is inundated by Corbynite scum.
It is beneficial for the Tories to have the Corbynites attack Javid so nastily. He should keep open his Twitter and calmly explain that the Windrush cases were terrible and must be corrected, but discouraging illegal immigration is correct policy.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord?
Re the recent knife murders in London, someone (maybe Cressida Dick) said that those middle class drug users might want to think about the consequences of their habit, making the link between the latter and the realities of the drugs trade. Well, the same might be said about those who use prostitutes and like to think that prostitutes are "empowered women" and the realities of people trafficking, multiple rapes, drug use, abuse of under-age girls, violence to prevent them escaping etc.
The counter argument is that prostitution is like Prohibition: the fact that it's illegal is exactly why it is criminal gangs who control it.
Same for burglary and theft and fraud.
Your Prohibition example does not work. No-one is seeking to ban sex. But stopping the abuse of women is a good thing. Legalising one form of it is a funny way of doing that.
Burglary, theft and fraud are not consensual for the ''victim".
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord? ...
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord?
Re the recent knife murders in London, someone (maybe Cressida Dick) said that those middle class drug users might want to think about the consequences of their habit, making the link between the latter and the realities of the drugs trade. Well, the same might be said about those who use prostitutes and like to think that prostitutes are "empowered women" and the realities of people trafficking, multiple rapes, drug use, abuse of under-age girls, violence to prevent them escaping etc.
The counter argument is that prostitution is like Prohibition: the fact that it's illegal is exactly why it is criminal gangs who control it.
Same for burglary and theft and fraud.
Your Prohibition example does not work. No-one is seeking to ban sex. But stopping the abuse of women is a good thing. Legalising one form of it is a funny way of doing that.
Burglary, theft and fraud are not consensual for the ''victim".
And you think trafficked girls forced into having sex are doing it "consensually", do you?
Mr. Tyndall, then change your behaviour. Eat less, eat better, exercise more. Why should the whole nation's taxation change because of your own circumstance? [I do hope you remain in good health, incidentally].
Mr. Flashman (deceased), agree entirely on Morgan.
Ms. Anazina, if prostitution (or drugs) were legalised that would mean the service and products would simply fall under existing taxation on work and sales.
Because my circumstances now match that officer 50% of the population. Refined sugar is almost certainly a bigger killer than either cigarettes or alcohol. Those who partake of such vices should pay for the consequent costs to the State.
Sorry typing on the phone that should say "that of over 50%"
Ah shucks, I had this striking vision of Richard Tyndall, Officer and Gentleman.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord?
Re the recent knife murders in London, someone (maybe Cressida Dick) said that those middle class drug users might want to think about the consequences of their habit, making the link between the latter and the realities of the drugs trade. Well, the same might be said about those who use prostitutes and like to think that prostitutes are "empowered women" and the realities of people trafficking, multiple rapes, drug use, abuse of under-age girls, violence to prevent them escaping etc.
The counter argument is that prostitution is like Prohibition: the fact that it's illegal is exactly why it is criminal gangs who control it.
Same for burglary and theft and fraud.
Your Prohibition example does not work. No-one is seeking to ban sex. But stopping the abuse of women is a good thing. Legalising one form of it is a funny way of doing that.
Prostitution does not just involve women. There are plenty of male sex workers - many of whom are also sufferers of abuse.
Of course. We do not hear much about them so I do not really know anything about this.
The vitriol that is going to be poured on an ethnic minority Home Sec will be nothing like we've seen before.
The left think every ethnic minority should be supporting them by rights and if they don't they are somehow traitors to all ethnic minority Britons.
Javid should delete his Twitter account before it is inundated by Corbynite scum.
It is beneficial for the Tories to have the Corbynites attack Javid so nastily. He should keep open his Twitter and calmly explain that the Windrush cases were terrible and must be corrected, but discouraging illegal immigration is correct policy.
That is probably the issue, though, for some on the left. They don't think illegal immigration should be discouraged or that illegal immigrants should be deported. Some don't think there should be any controls on immigration at all. If you think that the distinction between legal and illegal becomes purely academic.
I feel like appointing Javid is a good short-term move (it'll probably go down well with Tory MPs, and also make it harder to make the "Windrush shows the Tories are racist" argument stick), but will bite May in the long-run (he doesn't like her, and he's not proven to be particularly competent in his previous jobs)
And given all that he has said so far, does he believe May is the right person to lead the Tory party into the next general election? He waits several seconds, smiles, then stands and offers his hand. “I think we’re out of time,” he says, leaving us to draw the obvious conclusion.
Betting Post... You can get 5/4 for Miguel Angel Lopez to finish top 3 in the Giro which is great value. Astana are bringing a very strong team and I don't think Froome will do the full race so GC is Dumoulin vs Pinot vs Lopez.
"The backlog in finding failed asylum seekers has gone up. The number of illegal immigrants deported has gone down… this is a growing catalogue of failure. Yet illegal immigration is deeply damaging."
Time to take Kamala Harris seriously for the Democratic nomination ? https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/29/kamala-harris-2020-online-army-california-559212 No one outside of the old guard (Biden, Suanders, Warren...) has really emerged as the leading contender, but whoever out of the new generation achieves wide name recognition first surely will have some advantage. In addition, the ability to organise should not be underestimated.
The vitriol that is going to be poured on an ethnic minority Home Sec will be nothing like we've seen before.
The left think every ethnic minority should be supporting them by rights and if they don't they are somehow traitors to all ethnic minority Britons.
Javid should delete his Twitter account before it is inundated by Corbynite scum.
It is beneficial for the Tories to have the Corbynites attack Javid so nastily. He should keep open his Twitter and calmly explain that the Windrush cases were terrible and must be corrected, but discouraging illegal immigration is correct policy.
That is probably the issue, though, for some on the left. They don't think illegal immigration should be discouraged or that illegal immigrants should be deported. Some don't think there should be any controls on immigration at all. If you think that the distinction between legal and illegal becomes purely academic.
Which is a viewpoint the Tories should welcome Labour making.
The vitriol that is going to be poured on an ethnic minority Home Sec will be nothing like we've seen before.
The left think every ethnic minority should be supporting them by rights and if they don't they are somehow traitors to all ethnic minority Britons.
Javid should delete his Twitter account before it is inundated by Corbynite scum.
It is beneficial for the Tories to have the Corbynites attack Javid so nastily. He should keep open his Twitter and calmly explain that the Windrush cases were terrible and must be corrected, but discouraging illegal immigration is correct policy.
That is probably the issue, though, for some on the left. They don't think illegal immigration should be discouraged or that illegal immigrants should be deported. Some don't think there should be any controls on immigration at all. If you think that the distinction between legal and illegal becomes purely academic.
See Diane Abbott earlier today with Piers Morgan.....Labour has no policy on illegal immigrants she was willing to discuss (unless they’re convicted criminals)
And given all that he has said so far, does he believe May is the right person to lead the Tory party into the next general election? He waits several seconds, smiles, then stands and offers his hand. “I think we’re out of time,” he says, leaving us to draw the obvious conclusion.
Hmm. Javid clearly loathes Theresa. (Presumably some of this antagonism is due to her appalling treatment of his old tutor and mentor George Osborne.) Still, if he steps out of line she'll crush him as brutally and effectively as she crushed his immediate predecessor. He must learn his place.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord? ...
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
But too often the argument about harm focuses on the harm done to the users of the service rather than the providers.
If you normalise (and making something legal does normalise) stuff like prostitution, porn etc then don't be surprised when you find people expecting women who are not prostitutes effectively to give sex for favours or to be pressurised, more or less subtly, into doing so. Don't be surprised to find that young men think that the sex you have in porn is what sex in real life should be like or is like. And who suffers: not the punters but women.
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
Appointment by May shows she is running out of options. Her natural instinct would be to get a bland ally in there.
Good for the rest of us though. Chance for Javid to show his mettle.
Possibly an example of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. It will be much harder under collective responsibility for Javid to be critical as it is for Johnson.
We can now see the runners and riders for the Conservative Leadership Handicap open to 4-y-o of all ages. Johnson, Javid, Gove and Hunt are all in position to be able to launch challenges when the time comes.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
Quick note following up on Saturday's article where I said Rudd wouldn't have to go. I still don't think that she needed to - she's basically resigned over something she'd already apologised for and over which Labour hadn't really exacted that much pressure. The key measure is whether you're losing support on your own benches, and she wasn't.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
Quick note following up on Saturday's article where I said Rudd wouldn't have to go. I still don't think that she needed to - she's basically resigned over something she'd already apologised for and over which Labour hadn't really exacted that much pressure. The key measure is whether you're losing support on your own benches, and she wasn't.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord? ...
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
But too often the argument about harm focuses on the harm done to the users of the service rather than the providers.
If you normalise (and making something legal does normalise) stuff like prostitution, porn etc then don't be surprised when you find people expecting women who are not prostitutes effectively to give sex for favours or to be pressurised, more or less subtly, into doing so. Don't be surprised to find that young men think that the sex you have in porn is what sex in real life should be like or is like. And who suffers: not the punters but women.
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
You are not legalising attitudes by legalising acts. Did legalising adultery make adultery morally accepted in UK public opinion? I would like to think in the 21st century we have got to a level of thinking more sophisticated than "something is morally bad therefore it should be banned".
Quick note following up on Saturday's article where I said Rudd wouldn't have to go. I still don't think that she needed to - she's basically resigned over something she'd already apologised for and over which Labour hadn't really exacted that much pressure. The key measure is whether you're losing support on your own benches, and she wasn't.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
I think you're right. She could have ridden this out. That she has gone suggests to me at least some frustration with being in TM's govt and would rather be on the outside.
Edit - I also thought she would stay, admittedly because I thought May couldn't sack her. Didn't even consider the possibility she might resign tbh...
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
Quick note following up on Saturday's article where I said Rudd wouldn't have to go. I still don't think that she needed to - she's basically resigned over something she'd already apologised for and over which Labour hadn't really exacted that much pressure. The key measure is whether you're losing support on your own benches, and she wasn't.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
She probably thought it was no longer worth the bother. This also strengthens the view that Number Ten was behind the briefings. When your own leader is out to get you, you know the game's up.
Mr. Tyndall, then change your behaviour. Eat less, eat better, exercise more. Why should the whole nation's taxation change because of your own circumstance? [I do hope you remain in good health, incidentally].
Mr. Flashman (deceased), agree entirely on Morgan.
Ms. Anazina, if prostitution (or drugs) were legalised that would mean the service and products would simply fall under existing taxation on work and sales.
Because my circumstances now match that officer 50% of the population. Refined sugar is almost certainly a bigger killer than either cigarettes or alcohol. Those who partake of such vices should pay for the consequent costs to the State.
Sorry typing on the phone that should say "that of over 50%"
Ah shucks, I had this striking vision of Richard Tyndall, Officer and Gentleman.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
Closely regulated establishments with clear lists of sex workers who could be regularly interviewed for signs of abuse and coercion. Taxes on the matter could then be channelled into combatting human trafficking (which would of course be undermined anyway as trafficked women could not work in the legal brothels, which is where the punters would now go).
I'm still very annoyed that Kwasi isn't getting a look in. He needs a role in the government.
Interesting that his book "Britannia Unchained" never suggested that we should leave the EU. Indeed it cited our 'increasing isolation' from the EU as a symptom of decline.
Quick note following up on Saturday's article where I said Rudd wouldn't have to go. I still don't think that she needed to - she's basically resigned over something she'd already apologised for and over which Labour hadn't really exacted that much pressure. The key measure is whether you're losing support on your own benches, and she wasn't.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
Thank you for the honest assessment, David. I think the release of more information over the weekend left her position untenable in terms of weakening her defence that "she didn't know" about the targets.
She's acted with honour and that will do her credit in the longer term.
It would be nice to see others who were adamant she would stay admit they called it wrong.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
It would allow the authorities to concentrate their resources on these cases of coercion and trafficking, rather than as they do now deal with street workers and illegal brothels.
At the bottom end of the trade, there’s also a lot of intertwinement between prostitution and drugs. Get the drugs problems sorted out and the prostitution problem becomes easier to deal with.
I'm still very annoyed that Kwasi isn't getting a look in. He needs a role in the government.
Interesting that his book "Britannia Unchained" never suggested that we should leave the EU. Indeed it cited our 'increasing isolation' from the EU as a symptom of decline.
You do manage to turn everything into pro-EU drivel.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
It would allow the authorities to concentrate their resources on these cases of coercion and trafficking, rather than as they do now deal with street workers and illegal brothels.
At the bottom end of the trade, there’s also a lot of intertwinement between prostitution and drugs. Get the drugs problems sorted out and the prostitution problem becomes easier to deal with.
Off-Ho would be a good name for the regulatory body.
On the big issue of the day, I couldn't care less about taxing sugar. They can tax it at 1000%. I never eat the stuff and generally hate sweet things. Refined sugar is probably much worse for you than fat. And, anyway, you get quite enough natural sugar by eating fruit.
But am completely opposed to legalising or taxing prostitution. That just normalises and makes acceptable the abuse of women. If prostitution is viewed as legal and, therefore, as somehow acceptable, well then, why shouldn't a girl renting a room be expected to bestow her favours on the landlord? ...
I think the answer to that is that any legalisation (legalising either drugs or prostitution) would have to be combined with fairly strict regulation - but not so strict as to provide a similar incentive to operate outside of the law as exists now.
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
But too often the argument about harm focuses on the harm done to the users of the service rather than the providers.
If you normalise (and making something legal does normalise) stuff like prostitution, porn etc then don't be surprised when you find people expecting women who are not prostitutes effectively to give sex for favours or to be pressurised, more or less subtly, into doing so. Don't be surprised to find that young men think that the sex you have in porn is what sex in real life should be like or is like. And who suffers: not the punters but women.
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
You are not legalising attitudes by legalising acts. Did legalising adultery make adultery morally accepted in UK public opinion? I would like to think in the 21st century we have got to a level of thinking more sophisticated than "something is morally bad therefore it should be banned".
Again, a comparison of apples & oranges. Adultery is consensual.
And we do legalise attitudes by legalising acts. See the whole history of gay rights in this country which is a pretty good example of an initial legalisation of previously criminal acts leading, thankfully, over time to a very different and better attitude to homosexuality.
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Quick note following up on Saturday's article where I said Rudd wouldn't have to go. I still don't think that she needed to - she's basically resigned over something she'd already apologised for and over which Labour hadn't really exacted that much pressure. The key measure is whether you're losing support on your own benches, and she wasn't.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
She probably thought it was no longer worth the bother. This also strengthens the view that Number Ten was behind the briefings. When your own leader is out to get you, you know the game's up.
The story in Guido, FWIW is that an audit Rudd had asked for in the Home Office showed there were a number of memos on targets she could have seen, but hadn't and thought better than put up with a drip drip of revelations thought it better to go. May wanted her to stay.
An issue with legalisation of anything that is currently illegal - whether it be prostitution or drugs - is that there are people who make money out of the illegality. If you make it legal, then they won't go away: they'll find ways to exploit the new legislation in order to continue making money. If you legalise cannabis, they'll try to move cannabis users onto harder, illegal drugs. If certain types of prostitution are legalised, they'll make money out of other forms that may be wore for the prostitutes concerned.
You need to think about what criminals will do next if you remove their income stream.
That is not a reason not to legalise, but something that needs considering about any proposed legislation.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst not personally in favour (and I use the term broadly to include chaps being involved too), we know prostitution occurs, and always will occur. Regulation would at least allow risk to be diminished, trafficking to be more easily detected and thereby increase safety for those involved.
I'm open to alternative suggestions to improve the situation.
On drugs, I'd add the situation in Mexico, which is killing huge numbers of people.
Murder and theft occur and always will occur. That's no argument for making them legal.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard....
The landlord example is not directly relevant to legalisation because payment for sex between consenting individuals is not illegal now; the issue is coercion, which is (and the grey area between the two). I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
And what, exactly, would strong regulation consist of? OffTart? "OfFuck"? How would coercion be ascertained and regulated against?
Closely regulated establishments with clear lists of sex workers who could be regularly interviewed for signs of abuse and coercion. Taxes on the matter could then be channelled into combatting human trafficking (which would of course be undermined anyway as trafficked women could not work in the legal brothels, which is where the punters would now go).
I think that you are naive in thinking that interviews of women working in brothels will root out abuse and coercion. Or, indeed, that men will only go to legal establishments.
Kwasi never prospered under Cameron either. But he's now PPS to Hammond and I'd wager he'll get a junior job (PUSS) at the next 'ordinary' reshuffle. But not destined for stardom: these things happen.
Kwasi never prospered under Cameron either. But he's now PPS to Hammond and I'd wager he'll get a junior job (PUSS) at the next 'ordinary' reshuffle. But not destined for stardom: these things happen.
I think the problem is that he doesn't really play the game and he tends to say what he thinks. That's not an easy way to get promoted in our party.
Quick note following up on Saturday's article where I said Rudd wouldn't have to go. I still don't think that she needed to - she's basically resigned over something she'd already apologised for and over which Labour hadn't really exacted that much pressure. The key measure is whether you're losing support on your own benches, and she wasn't.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
She probably thought it was no longer worth the bother. This also strengthens the view that Number Ten was behind the briefings. When your own leader is out to get you, you know the game's up.
The story in Guido, FWIW is that an audit Rudd had asked for in the Home Office showed there were a number of memos on targets she could have seen, but hadn't and thought better than put up with a drip drip of revelations thought it better to go. May wanted her to stay.
The question is whether a desire to achieve a 10% increase in enforced removals constituted a bolted on, actual target.
Comments
Mr. Borough, that's an interesting observation.
He's still available at 25. I suspect in a few weeks, assuming no alarums or excursions in the interim, he'll be in the teens. The holders of the great offices of state have to be taken seriously.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/990883319146536960
Although to become PM he will need to survive being at Home.
I disagree that it will make trafficking more easily detectable. If prostitution is legalised why would anyone worry about trafficking? Or prioritise it? On the contrary, it will make it easier for girls, particularly young ones, to be pressurised into prostitution or to something that looks very like it e.g. sex for favours - see my landlord example which was recently reported in the Standard. Or sex as a way of paying to be smuggled into Europe.
As I've said before, he faces a huge task trying to sell and then implement the post-EU immigration policy (whatever that turns out being).
The left think every ethnic minority should be supporting them by rights and if they don't they are somehow traitors to all ethnic minority Britons.
Javid should delete his Twitter account before it is inundated by Corbynite scum.
Your Prohibition example does not work. No-one is seeking to ban sex. But stopping the abuse of women is a good thing. Legalising one form of it is a funny way of doing that.
Still I wish him luck. He'll need it.
https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/990886594663116800
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/are-jews-an-ethnic-minority-the-bbc-doesn-t-think-so-1.441775
It's a difficult question, and no answers are ideal, but it is surely a matter of which alternative produces the least harm ?
If only you'd had an accumulator.
Still, at this rate, we're all going to have to take you seriously...
Javid vs Corbyn could be interesting in 2022.
Self-made man, dad a bus driver, state schooling etc etc. Striving class in a nutshell.
That is probably the issue, though, for some on the left. They don't think illegal immigration should be discouraged or that illegal immigrants should be deported. Some don't think there should be any controls on immigration at all. If you think that the distinction between legal and illegal becomes purely academic.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/maria-miller/58083/sajid-javid-more-thatcherite-thatcher-tipped-top
And given all that he has said so far, does he believe May is the right person to lead the Tory party into the next general election? He waits several seconds, smiles, then stands and offers his hand. “I think we’re out of time,” he says, leaving us to draw the obvious conclusion.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/sajid-javid-brexit-theresa-may-conservative-conference
"The backlog in finding failed asylum seekers has gone up. The number of illegal immigrants deported has gone down… this is a growing catalogue of failure. Yet illegal immigration is deeply damaging."
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/990889824264642561?s=20
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/29/kamala-harris-2020-online-army-california-559212
No one outside of the old guard (Biden, Suanders, Warren...) has really emerged as the leading contender, but whoever out of the new generation achieves wide name recognition first surely will have some advantage.
In addition, the ability to organise should not be underestimated.
Good for the rest of us though. Chance for Javid to show his mettle.
We should have a hostile environment for people who shouldn't be here. Nothing wrong with that.
Most normal people think the wind rush story is being exaggerated and are bored of it now.
If you normalise (and making something legal does normalise) stuff like prostitution, porn etc then don't be surprised when you find people expecting women who are not prostitutes effectively to give sex for favours or to be pressurised, more or less subtly, into doing so. Don't be surprised to find that young men think that the sex you have in porn is what sex in real life should be like or is like. And who suffers: not the punters but women.
We cannot get all outraged by abuse of actresses and waitresses etc and join "Me Too" campaigns while at the same time legalising the very attitudes to women which lead to men viewing women as pieces of flesh put on earth for men's use regardless of the wishes of the women concerned, let alone any more airy fairy issues around women's dignity.
We can now see the runners and riders for the Conservative Leadership Handicap open to 4-y-o of all ages. Johnson, Javid, Gove and Hunt are all in position to be able to launch challenges when the time comes.
I am not convinced that a regime of legalisation and strong regulation would not be an improvement.
All the same, she did resign and i called that wrong.
That she has gone suggests to me at least some frustration with being in TM's govt and would rather be on the outside.
Edit - I also thought she would stay, admittedly because I thought May couldn't sack her. Didn't even consider the possibility she might resign tbh...
She's acted with honour and that will do her credit in the longer term.
It would be nice to see others who were adamant she would stay admit they called it wrong.
At the bottom end of the trade, there’s also a lot of intertwinement between prostitution and drugs. Get the drugs problems sorted out and the prostitution problem becomes easier to deal with.
And we do legalise attitudes by legalising acts. See the whole history of gay rights in this country which is a pretty good example of an initial legalisation of previously criminal acts leading, thankfully, over time to a very different and better attitude to homosexuality.
Abuse of women is morally bad and is also legally bad, rightly in my view. I do not see a good reason for legalising a form of abuse of women (which is what prostitution in reality is) because ..... well ..... it always happens and always will.
Good to see Javid and Abbot in such Senior positions.
I think credit to Dianne for being on the right side of this in 2014 and in fairness even under New Labour.
With regard to Windrush Labour should give SJ some headroom to sort it out. I think most people get this is TMs mess
There is no medium or long term Political Gain from going harder and harder after TM.
We are entering the medium term. Just let Javid sort it if he doesn't it becomes a GE issue
You need to think about what criminals will do next if you remove their income stream.
That is not a reason not to legalise, but something that needs considering about any proposed legislation.
I'm not sure that a romance from 5 years ago really matters.