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.
...
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.
Prostitution is usually consensual...
Is it ?
This is when the absence of PB's foremost prostitute authority is most keenly felt.
It has occurred to me not infrequently that many (most ?) of us have only second hand knowledge of subjects we pontificate on. This would seem to be one of them.
I think the people who speak against prostitution are similar to the ones who speak against abortion: naive. Prostitution provides a valuable service and very few of the people who are involved are doing so against their will. Laws exist to protect people from harm, and these apply to prostitutes as much as to anyone else. Of course some prostitutes are mistreated, but there are agencies working to protect their rights and well-being.
Anyway, prostitution itself is legal. There are a range of activities closely connected with prostitution that are illegal. As it happens, I think English law strikes a pretty good balance in this area.
If that's the case, then I hope all prostitutes pay the correct amount of tax and national insurance on their earnings.
I thought after the Hague and IDS experience the Tories had determined never to have another bald leader?
Churchill was bald
Churchill doesn't count as an exception to the rule that 'bald men don't win' because he was up against Attlee, so the public weren't given a choice (though when Attlee was up against Baldwin or Eden, he lost).
IDS never lost.
John Howard in Australia won 4 elections despite his baldness, all against those with a full head of hair
Failing to get to the starting line because your own party dumps you counts as a loss.
There are exceptions, as with Howard, but they're rare. I did an article on this 9 years ago:
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
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.
Prostitution is usually consensual...
Is it ?
This is when the absence of PB's foremost prostitute authority is most keenly felt.
It has occurred to me not infrequently that many (most ?) of us have only second hand knowledge of subjects we pontificate on. This would seem to be one of them.
It's one where few are going to admit to any first hand knowledge on either side of the transaction.
Anyway, prostitution itself is legal. There are a range of activities closely connected with prostitution that are illegal. As it happens, I think English law strikes a pretty good balance in this area.
I thought after the Hague and IDS experience the Tories had determined never to have another bald leader?
Churchill was bald
Churchill doesn't count as an exception to the rule that 'bald men don't win' because he was up against Attlee, so the public weren't given a choice (though when Attlee was up against Baldwin or Eden, he lost).
IDS never lost.
John Howard in Australia won 4 elections despite his baldness, all against those with a full head of hair
Failing to get to the starting line because your own party dumps you counts as a loss.
There are exceptions, as with Howard, but they're rare. I did an article on this 9 years ago:
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.
On the contrary, I think signs of abuse in adults are often very visible to people sufficiently resourced. Legal brothel workers could also have regular case workers they form relationships with that regularly inundate then with guidance on how to leave the trade.
Equally, I think the vast majority of punters would use the legal trade, particularly if you ramped up punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels.
In both cases compliance would never be 100% but it would be orders of magnitude better than the current system where the authorities can not even identify the women involved.
Hmm - like the signs of abuse visible to the social workers and youth workers and policemen who saw the abused Rotherham girls who told them what was happening and who did (most of them) - well - the square root of fuck all to help those girls.
Sorry: you may be well intentioned but I think you are naive in thinking that anything would be done for these women, even if the evidence was there.
If sanctioned brothels are to be licensed and taxed, they will need to issue receipts etc. You think men will want to use them and risk being found out by their wives, girlfriends etc......?
And what might the punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels be?
I have to say independent thought is this sadly lacking on this and I have to sadly agree with George Osborne. It was noted on the Today programme this morning that Rudd was accompanied by a senior civil servant who was advising her there were no targets.
It seems very unwise of her the previous week to blame the Windrush issue on civil servants, as even if asked directly a sir-Humphrey style mandarin could talk about an ambition to remove illegal immigrants, an objective of removing all non resident criminals at the end of their sentence, an intention to increase the percentage of removals. Not a target in sight!
A lot of Tories have been complaining that Labour has been conflating Windrush with combating illegal immigration and I've generally disagreed with them (the whole point is that our approach to doing that latter caused the former). But this seems like a genuine example of that. The scandal isn't that you can't work if your immigration status prohibits it, it's that proving immigration status can be extremely difficult for legal immigrants, and that the default assumption is too far towards them being illegal.
Anyway, prostitution itself is legal. There are a range of activities closely connected with prostitution that are illegal. As it happens, I think English law strikes a pretty good balance in this area.
If that's the case, then I hope all prostitutes pay the correct amount of tax and national insurance on their earnings.
There have been several court cases, which have ruled that prostitutes are indeed liable to pay income tax.
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.
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.
...
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.
Prostitution is usually consensual...
Is it ?
This is when the absence of PB's foremost prostitute authority is most keenly felt.
It has occurred to me not infrequently that many (most ?) of us have only second hand knowledge of subjects we pontificate on. This would seem to be one of them.
Yeah, right... There will almost certainly be a lot more first hand knowledge of pros on here than people are prepared to admit.
I thought after the Hague and IDS experience the Tories had determined never to have another bald leader?
Churchill was bald
Churchill doesn't count as an exception to the rule that 'bald men don't win' because he was up against Attlee, so the public weren't given a choice (though when Attlee was up against Baldwin or Eden, he lost).
IDS never lost.
John Howard in Australia won 4 elections despite his baldness, all against those with a full head of hair
Failing to get to the starting line because your own party dumps you counts as a loss.
There are exceptions, as with Howard, but they're rare. I did an article on this 9 years ago:
IDS won the Local Elections the year he was dumped.
Berlusconi too is another example of a Baldie who won and as you mention in your article so was IKE
Ike doesn't count: he twice defeated Adlai Steveson, who was also bald, or near enough. Berlusconi has a high forehead and a transplant (though he still looks baldish, I'll grant you).
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Far more popular in PB will be that he is also a Friend of Israel. I think his website says [ or said, I haven't looked at it recently ] he is "proud" of it.
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Far more popular in PB will be that he is also a Friend of Israel. I think his website says [ or said, I haven't looked at it recently ] he is "proud" of it.
I'm unsure that using that attack line will prove very profitable for Labour ...
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.
On the contrary, I think signs of abuse in adults are often very visible to people sufficiently resourced. Legal brothel workers could also have regular case workers they form relationships with that regularly inundate then with guidance on how to leave the trade.
Equally, I think the vast majority of punters would use the legal trade, particularly if you ramped up punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels.
In both cases compliance would never be 100% but it would be orders of magnitude better than the current system where the authorities can not even identify the women involved.
Hmm - like the signs of abuse visible to the social workers and youth workers and policemen who saw the abused Rotherham girls who told them what was happening and who did (most of them) - well - the square root of fuck all to help those girls.
Sorry: you may be well intentioned but I think you are naive in thinking that anything would be done for these women, even if the evidence was there.
If sanctioned brothels are to be licensed and taxed, they will need to issue receipts etc. You think men will want to use them and risk being found out by their wives, girlfriends etc......?
And what might the punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels be?
Just because a service provider is obliged to issue receipts, it doesn't mean that the customer is obliged to ask for one, or take it if offered.
The sanction for visiting an illegal brothel would presumably be defined in the licencing legislation but I'd have thought that a moderate fine should suffice (given that a successful prosecution would of itself bring unwelcome publicity and a criminal record). The heavy sentencing should apply to the brothel-keepers.
Anyway, prostitution itself is legal. There are a range of activities closely connected with prostitution that are illegal. As it happens, I think English law strikes a pretty good balance in this area.
If that's the case, then I hope all prostitutes pay the correct amount of tax and national insurance on their earnings.
Presumably they'll have set up personal service companies - dividends rather than income.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
I don't see how you could deter illegal immigration without similar.
Yes, what seems broken is the ability of the Home Office to determine people into correct categories - which is where the EU (rightly I feel) has concerns post Brexit. If someone has entered the UK on a tourist premise and is now working without having gone through the proper procedures, throw the book at them.
Anyway, prostitution itself is legal. There are a range of activities closely connected with prostitution that are illegal. As it happens, I think English law strikes a pretty good balance in this area.
If that's the case, then I hope all prostitutes pay the correct amount of tax and national insurance on their earnings.
Presumably they'll have set up personal service companies - dividends rather than income.
They'll be eligible to pay NI at a lower rate than the employed too, another reason Hammond's reforms should have taken place.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
Seems to me a major battle line for GE 2022 has opened up in last few days.
Not a winning one for Labour tho' - last week's yougov on this had 2/3's of Labour supporters backing elements of the hostile environment.
Most of us do not object to applying a hostile environment to illegals, it is applying it to legals that has been the issue. In particular making the burden of proof of legality complex and retrospective with a default assumption of illegality.
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Really interesting piece, thanks for linking. Re Javid, yeah I heard he wasn’t a practicing Muslim before, but that isn’t going to matter to the Trump voters.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
Seems to me a major battle line for GE 2022 has opened up in last few days.
Not a winning one for Labour tho' - last week's yougov on this had 2/3's of Labour supporters backing elements of the hostile environment.
Most of us do not object to applying a hostile environment to illegals, it is applying it to legals that has been the issue. In particular making the burden of proof of legality complex and retrospective with a default assumption of illegality.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
Possibly though Javid was I think a closet Leaver, he was always very Eurosceptic but backed Remain out of Cabinet collective responsibility
For some reason you've spelled the words 'personal ambition' as 'collective responsibility'.
Labour and the Conservatives are virtually level pegging in the poll, which has the parties standing at Tories 41 per cent (-2), Labour 40 (-2), Liberal Democrats 10 (+4), and the Greens and Ukip on two each.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
Seems to me a major battle line for GE 2022 has opened up in last few days.
Not a winning one for Labour tho' - last week's yougov on this had 2/3's of Labour supporters backing elements of the hostile environment.
Most of us do not object to applying a hostile environment to illegals, it is applying it to legals that has been the issue. In particular making the burden of proof of legality complex and retrospective with a default assumption of illegality.
This is exactly where most people are on this, and labour seem to be misreading the situation. One of their representatives on Daily Politics was conflating the issues of legal (or in the case of Windrush commonwealth british) and illegal immigration. She was saying that Windrush saga showed that the government had got it wrong and that people who had a hard journey to get here shouldn't be deported.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
I don't see how you could deter illegal immigration without similar.
Yes, what seems broken is the ability of the Home Office to determine people into correct categories - which is where the EU (rightly I feel) has concerns post Brexit. If someone has entered the UK on a tourist premise and is now working without having gone through the proper procedures, throw the book at them.
And really throw the book at their employers and landlords, who are benefiting from ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow. Start with the car washes and restaurants.
Meanwhile the new HS needs to find an easy way of giving ILR to those who have clearly lived here for decades. Getting rid of a couple of layers of Sir Humphreys might be a good starting point there, empowering those on the front line to make quick decisions.
Sajid Javid's appointment a shrewd choice by May for Home Secretary and his John Major like rise to such a senior post now makes him a prime candidate to be next Tory leader
So a Remainer might succeed May, told you that was a very strong possibility.
Possibly though Javid was I think a closet Leaver, he was always very Eurosceptic but backed Remain out of Cabinet collective responsibility
For some reason you've spelled the words 'personal ambition' as 'collective responsibility'.
Don't tell HYUFD, but his previous Euroscepticism may have been for the same reason.
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Really interesting piece, thanks for linking. Re Javid, yeah I heard he wasn’t a practicing Muslim before, but that isn’t going to matter to the Trump voters.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it. Frightening too, too how social media....... and I can under stadn how Alfie’s parents felt.... can introduce highly iundesirable people with their own axes to grind. As for the American politician’s interventions they are beneath contempt.
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Far more popular in PB will be that he is also a Friend of Israel. I think his website says [ or said, I haven't looked at it recently ] he is "proud" of it.
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Really interesting piece, thanks for linking. Re Javid, yeah I heard he wasn’t a practicing Muslim before, but that isn’t going to matter to the Trump voters.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it. Frightening too, too how social media....... and I can under stadn how Alfie’s parents felt.... can introduce highly iundesirable people with their own axes to grind. As for the American politician’s interventions they are beneath contempt.
I’ve always had an intense dislike of the American Right, and their whole reaction to the Alfie Evans story has simply just reinforced it. There entire mentality seems at odds to me with how many people in this country see things.
Was anyone watching Daily Politics - Barry Gardinenr tried to argued that Labour did support immigration targets, but that these targets should be calculated, from the number of illegal immigrants here.
At this point it crossed my mind that if they are here illegally then how do we know how many there are? Helpfully Mr Gardiner then clarified this saying it wasn't possible for the home office to know. Sadly Jo Coburn didn't pick him up on this.
Was anyone watching Daily Politics - Barry Gardinenr tried to argued that Labour did support immigration targets, but that these targets should be calculated, from the number of illegal immigrants here.
At this point it crossed my mind that if they are here illegally then how do we know how many there are? Helpfully Mr Gardiner then clarified this saying it wasn't possible for the home office to know. Sadly Jo Coburn didn't pick him up on this.
This happened when... Jacqui Smith I think? Was asked, Paxman-style if it wasn't Paxman, five times, questions semantically identical to "How many illegal immigrants that you don't know about are there in the country?"
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Really interesting piece, thanks for linking. Re Javid, yeah I heard he wasn’t a practicing Muslim before, but that isn’t going to matter to the Trump voters.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it. Frightening too, too how social media....... and I can under stadn how Alfie’s parents felt.... can introduce highly iundesirable people with their own axes to grind. As for the American politician’s interventions they are beneath contempt.
I’ve always had an intense dislike of the American Right, and their whole reaction to the Alfie Evans story has simply just reinforced it. There entire mentality seems at odds to me with how many people in this country see things.
US politics is simply too alien to most of us to pick a side.
Anyway, prostitution itself is legal. There are a range of activities closely connected with prostitution that are illegal. As it happens, I think English law strikes a pretty good balance in this area.
If that's the case, then I hope all prostitutes pay the correct amount of tax and national insurance on their earnings.
There have been several court cases, which have ruled that prostitutes are indeed liable to pay income tax.
Though can claim some remarkable things as business expenses.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
I don't see how you could deter illegal immigration without similar.
Yes, what seems broken is the ability of the Home Office to determine people into correct categories - which is where the EU (rightly I feel) has concerns post Brexit. If someone has entered the UK on a tourist premise and is now working without having gone through the proper procedures, throw the book at them.
And really throw the book at their employers and landlords, who are benefiting from ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow. Start with the car washes and restaurants.
Meanwhile the new HS needs to find an easy way of giving ILR to those who have clearly lived here for decades. Getting rid of a couple of layers of Sir Humphreys might be a good starting point there, empowering those on the front line to make quick decisions.
I’m not that keen on empowering those on the front line to use their discretion: this leads to accusations of (and actual) racism. If the system is broken it is most likely to be picked up when nice middle class people start getting it in the neck.
It is similar to one of the reasons thatI am so pleased to see the back of teacher assessment in science GCSEs: it removes the temptation to mark someone down because they have been inattentive all year, or to give someone else a more than reasonable benefit of the doubt because they are always so keen in lessons.
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?
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.
On the contrary, I think signs of abuse in adults are often very visible to people sufficiently resourced. Legal brothel workers could also have regular case workers they form relationships with that regularly inundate then with guidance on how to leave the trade.
Equally, I think the vast majority of punters would use the legal trade, particularly if you ramped up punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels.
In both cases compliance would never be 100% but it would be orders of magnitude better than the current system where the authorities can not even identify the women involved.
Hmm - like the signs of abuse visible to the social workers and youth workers and policemen who saw the abused Rotherham girls who told them what was happening and who did (most of them) - well - the square root of fuck all to help those girls.
Sorry: you may be well intentioned but I think you are naive in thinking that anything would be done for these women, even if the evidence was there.
If sanctioned brothels are to be licensed and taxed, they will need to issue receipts etc. You think men will want to use them and risk being found out by their wives, girlfriends etc......?
And what might the punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels be?
I said abuse in adults. Children are a different matter. Look, we have evidence from Germany of legalised brothels and they show far lower levels of abuse than in illegal ones elsewhere.
Sanctioned brothels can issue all the receipts they want. It doesn't stop the punter from not taking it. I often don't take them from the supernarket. It's a silly argument.
I would advocate short prison sentences for using illegal brothels in this context. The presumption should be that illegal brothels are using trafficked girls, so punishments for use should be proportionate with that.
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Really interesting piece, thanks for linking. Re Javid, yeah I heard he wasn’t a practicing Muslim before, but that isn’t going to matter to the Trump voters.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it. Frightening too, too how social media....... and I can under stadn how Alfie’s parents felt.... can introduce highly iundesirable people with their own axes to grind. As for the American politician’s interventions they are beneath contempt.
I’ve always had an intense dislike of the American Right, and their whole reaction to the Alfie Evans story has simply just reinforced it. There entire mentality seems at odds to me with how many people in this country see things.
US politics is simply too alien to most of us to pick a side.
'England and America are two countries divided by a common language' - George Bernard Shaw
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
I don't see how you could deter illegal immigration without similar.
Yes, what seems broken is the ability of the Home Office to determine people into correct categories - which is where the EU (rightly I feel) has concerns post Brexit. If someone has entered the UK on a tourist premise and is now working without having gone through the proper procedures, throw the book at them.
And really throw the book at their employers and landlords, who are benefiting from ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow. Start with the car washes and restaurants.
Meanwhile the new HS needs to find an easy way of giving ILR to those who have clearly lived here for decades. Getting rid of a couple of layers of Sir Humphreys might be a good starting point there, empowering those on the front line to make quick decisions.
I’m not that keen on empowering those on the front line to use their discretion: this leads to accusations of (and actual) racism. If the system is broken it is most likely to be picked up when nice middle class people start getting it in the neck.
It is similar to one of the reasons thatI am so pleased to see the back of teacher assessment in science GCSEs: it removes the temptation to mark someone down because they have been inattentive all year, or to give someone else a more than reasonable benefit of the doubt because they are always so keen in lessons.
The sensible thing, surely, would be to pause all deportations while the policy is reviewed. Surely to God someone in the Home Office, or among Javid’s SPADs there is someone who has some ideas.
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
Really interesting piece, thanks for linking. Re Javid, yeah I heard he wasn’t a practicing Muslim before, but that isn’t going to matter to the Trump voters.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it. Frightening too, too how social media....... and I can under stadn how Alfie’s parents felt.... can introduce highly iundesirable people with their own axes to grind. As for the American politician’s interventions they are beneath contempt.
I’ve always had an intense dislike of the American Right, and their whole reaction to the Alfie Evans story has simply just reinforced it. There entire mentality seems at odds to me with how many people in this country see things.
US politics is simply too alien to most of us to pick a side.
No two situations are alike.
But for me, what might on paper have seemed like major ethical quandaries turned out to be easy decisions in practice.
You cannot sit at the bedside of, say, those in the final throes of a very painful death and not hope for it to be (a) less painful and (b) shorter.
I think it is something about the inevitability that makes it easier - some of Alfie's self-professed supporters seemed to think he had >0% chance of a recovery and that fact alone gave them a reason to fight.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
I don't see how you could deter illegal immigration without similar.
Yes, what seems broken is the ability of the Home Office to determine people into correct categories - which is where the EU (rightly I feel) has concerns post Brexit. If someone has entered the UK on a tourist premise and is now working without having gone through the proper procedures, throw the book at them.
And really throw the book at their employers and landlords, who are benefiting from ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow. Start with the car washes and restaurants.
Meanwhile the new HS needs to find an easy way of giving ILR to those who have clearly lived here for decades. Getting rid of a couple of layers of Sir Humphreys might be a good starting point there, empowering those on the front line to make quick decisions.
I’m not that keen on empowering those on the front line to use their discretion: this leads to accusations of (and actual) racism. If the system is broken it is most likely to be picked up when nice middle class people start getting it in the neck.
It is similar to one of the reasons thatI am so pleased to see the back of teacher assessment in science GCSEs: it removes the temptation to mark someone down because they have been inattentive all year, or to give someone else a more than reasonable benefit of the doubt because they are always so keen in lessons.
The sensible thing, surely, would be to pause all deportations while the policy is reviewed. Surely to God someone in the Home Office, or among Javid’s SPADs there is someone who has some ideas.
Agreed. The policy has to be right though. Ironically, the legal system copes well with the idea of ‘reasonableness’, but I wouldn’t trust officials who may be judged on the numbers.
I think Labour are falling into a trap if they move onto the general "hostile environment". The public, in general, supports deporting illegal immigrants and making sure they don't use the NHS for free. In fact it's one of the few areas where I'd say the current Tory party is closer to public opinion than Corbyn.
Most of us do not object to applying a hostile environment to illegals, it is applying it to legals that has been the issue. In particular making the burden of proof of legality complex and retrospective with a default assumption of illegality.
Yes, the things I want from a post-EU immigration policy are clarity, transparency, accountability and equality. All people, irrespective of where they originate, should face the same policy when they seek to reside here.
IF someone wants to come here with a skill we need, it shouldn't matter from where they come for getting a visa, work permit or whatever - the same rules should reply to someone from Azerbaijan, Argentina, Austria or Australia.
The system should be clear, available and disputes need to be resolved quickly, accurately and fairly not leaving individuals in a limbo of uncertainty for years if not decades.
I think Labour are falling into a trap if they move onto the general "hostile environment". The public, in general, supports deporting illegal immigrants and making sure they don't use the NHS for free. In fact it's one of the few areas where I'd say the current Tory party is closer to public opinion than Corbyn.
To give Corbyn his due he is being consistent on this: if you do not believe in any form of hereditary rights, then the fact that some have U.K. citizenship just because of where they were born is unfair.
It’s one of the reasons I am happy with the hereditary principle.
Most of us do not object to applying a hostile environment to illegals, it is applying it to legals that has been the issue. In particular making the burden of proof of legality complex and retrospective with a default assumption of illegality.
Yes, the things I want from a post-EU immigration policy are clarity, transparency, accountability and equality. All people, irrespective of where they originate, should face the same policy when they seek to reside here.
Including Irish people? Your answer will either expose your hypocrisy or your lack of reality.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
I don't see how you could deter illegal immigration without similar.
Yes, what seems broken is the ability of the Home Office to determine people into correct categories - which is where the EU (rightly I feel) has concerns post Brexit. If someone has entered the UK on a tourist premise and is now working without having gone through the proper procedures, throw the book at them.
And really throw the book at their employers and landlords, who are benefiting from ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow. Start with the car washes and restaurants.
Meanwhile the new HS needs to find an easy way of giving ILR to those who have clearly lived here for decades. Getting rid of a couple of layers of Sir Humphreys might be a good starting point there, empowering those on the front line to make quick decisions.
I’m not that keen on empowering those on the front line to use their discretion: this leads to accusations of (and actual) racism. If the system is broken it is most likely to be picked up when nice middle class people start getting it in the neck.
It is similar to one of the reasons thatI am so pleased to see the back of teacher assessment in science GCSEs: it removes the temptation to mark someone down because they have been inattentive all year, or to give someone else a more than reasonable benefit of the doubt because they are always so keen in lessons.
The sensible thing, surely, would be to pause all deportations while the policy is reviewed. Surely to God someone in the Home Office, or among Javid’s SPADs there is someone who has some ideas.
That’s a bloody good starting point, along with an urgent and independent review of all deportation cases that don’t involve prisoners.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
I don't see how you could deter illegal immigration without similar.
Yes, what seems broken is the ability of the Home Office to determine people into correct categories - which is where the EU (rightly I feel) has concerns post Brexit. If someone has entered the UK on a tourist premise and is now working without having gone through the proper procedures, throw the book at them.
And really throw the book at their employers and landlords, who are benefiting from ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow. Start with the car washes and restaurants.
Meanwhile the new HS needs to find an easy way of giving ILR to those who have clearly lived here for decades. Getting rid of a couple of layers of Sir Humphreys might be a good starting point there, empowering those on the front line to make quick decisions.
I’m not that keen on empowering those on the front line to use their discretion: this leads to accusations of (and actual) racism. If the system is broken it is most likely to be picked up when nice middle class people start getting it in the neck.
It is similar to one of the reasons thatI am so pleased to see the back of teacher assessment in science GCSEs: it removes the temptation to mark someone down because they have been inattentive all year, or to give someone else a more than reasonable benefit of the doubt because they are always so keen in lessons.
The sensible thing, surely, would be to pause all deportations while the policy is reviewed. Surely to God someone in the Home Office, or among Javid’s SPADs there is someone who has some ideas.
Agreed. The policy has to be right though. Ironically, the legal system copes well with the idea of ‘reasonableness’, but I wouldn’t trust officials who may be judged on the numbers.
I’ve posted before that in one of my jobs I had to administer the IVF regulations for a PCT. Some cases were ‘easy', some not so, and sometimes when querying 'up the line' I was asked ‘what’s the problem?’
I’ve posted before that in one of my jobs I had to administer the IVF regulations for a PCT. Some cases were ‘easy', some not so, and sometimes when querying 'up the line' I was asked ‘what’s the problem?’
Generally were the higher-up-the-chain be more prepared to go ahead with or halt the IVF on the marginal cases than you were.
Most of us do not object to applying a hostile environment to illegals, it is applying it to legals that has been the issue. In particular making the burden of proof of legality complex and retrospective with a default assumption of illegality.
Yes, the things I want from a post-EU immigration policy are clarity, transparency, accountability and equality. All people, irrespective of where they originate, should face the same policy when they seek to reside here.
Including Irish people? Your answer will either expose your hypocrisy or your lack of reality.
Anglo-Irish treaty obligations make it impossible to treat Irish immigrants equally to non-Irish immigrants. Hypocrisy doesn't come into it.
All 6 of those points look like excellent policy decisions to me.
I don't see how you could deter illegal immigration without similar.
Yes, what seems broken is the ability of the Home Office to determine people into correct categories - which is where the EU (rightly I feel) has concerns post Brexit. If someone has entered the UK on a tourist premise and is now working without having gone through the proper procedures, throw the book at them.
And really throw the book at their employers and landlords, who are benefiting from ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow. Start with the car washes and restaurants.
Meanwhile the new HS needs to find an easy way of giving ILR to those who have clearly lived here for decades. Getting rid of a couple of layers of Sir Humphreys might be a good starting point there, empowering those on the front line to make quick decisions.
I’m not that keen on empowering those on the front line to use their discretion: this leads to accusations of (and actual) racism. If the system is broken it is most likely to be picked up when nice middle class people start getting it in the neck.
It is similar to one of the reasons thatI am so pleased to see the back of teacher assessment in science GCSEs: it removes the temptation to mark someone down because they have been inattentive all year, or to give someone else a more than reasonable benefit of the doubt because they are always so keen in lessons.
The sensible thing, surely, would be to pause all deportations while the policy is reviewed. Surely to God someone in the Home Office, or among Javid’s SPADs there is someone who has some ideas.
That’s a bloody good starting point, along with an urgent and independent review of all deportation cases that don’t involve prisoners.
A good friend of mine is a judge on immigration and deportation matters. Very much a Guardinista, yet even she says some of the people who come before her would make your skin crawl....
I’ve posted before that in one of my jobs I had to administer the IVF regulations for a PCT. Some cases were ‘easy', some not so, and sometimes when querying 'up the line' I was asked ‘what’s the problem?’
Generally were the higher-up-the-chain be more prepared to go ahead with or halt the IVF on the marginal cases than you were.
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.
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.
...
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".
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.
Prostitution is usually consensual...
Is it ?
This is when the absence of PB's foremost prostitute authority is most keenly felt.
It has occurred to me not infrequently that many (most ?) of us have only second knowledge of subjects we pontificate on. This would seem to be one of them.
I did an investigation once into a trader who was running a brothel. What I learnt was not pleasant, to put it mildly. Even more awful was the "see no evil" reaction of senior management.
Why should Irish (outside of NI) people get special rights to migrate here? Polls consistently show them as the migrants least likely to identify as British even after decades here.
I’m not that keen on empowering those on the front line to use their discretion: this leads to accusations of (and actual) racism. If the system is broken it is most likely to be picked up when nice middle class people start getting it in the neck.
It is similar to one of the reasons thatI am so pleased to see the back of teacher assessment in science GCSEs: it removes the temptation to mark someone down because they have been inattentive all year, or to give someone else a more than reasonable benefit of the doubt because they are always so keen in lessons.
The sensible thing, surely, would be to pause all deportations while the policy is reviewed. Surely to God someone in the Home Office, or among Javid’s SPADs there is someone who has some ideas.
That’s a bloody good starting point, along with an urgent and independent review of all deportation cases that don’t involve prisoners.
A good friend of mine is a judge on immigration and deportation matters. Very much a Guardinista, yet even she says some of the people who come before her would make your skin crawl....
It’s hardly controversial to expect immigrants to maintain good standing in their community, surely? Foreign prisoners should go from their cell to the airport, they can appeal to be allowed back in in their own time and at their own expense.
People who have useful skills, can earn high salaries and stay out of trouble should be welcomed with open arms.
In the middle we have a whole bunch of people who are stuck in limbo, we need to register them and give them passports or ID cards. A temporary immigrant should get an ID card that doubles as an NI card and has an expiry date on it. Every other country in the world does this!!!
We need to be really harsh on employers, if there’s a dodgy car wash in a supermarket car park then we need to fine the supermarket chain landlord a percentage of their annual turnover.
Ironically, a lot of the Windrush-type problems are that people didn’t find themselves coming into contact with authorities for many years. I feel genuinely sorry for them and we need to sort them out quickly and fairly.
There is, apparently a government organised a charter flight to Jamaica which could be departing the UK as early as Thursday 3rd of May.
Seems astonishing in the present climate that they’re going ahead with this. One woman has already been removed from the flight list, and others are appealing.
My attitude to the home office and immigration policy has nothing to do with my having being an immigrant to a bunch of different countries over the years, nor my forthcoming interactions with the HO in trying to get my wife a British visa.
Oh, and Hartley was confirmed in 10th place, so I somehow managed to finish 19% up on my F1 bets yesterday.
Just shows how it would have been better for the Uk to start negotiating with the EU from a position of moving to WTO and waiting for them to make concessions to avoid the damage to the exports to the Uk from the Rest of the EU. Did the UK ministers not read Trumps 'Art of the Deal'?
Most of us do not object to applying a hostile environment to illegals, it is applying it to legals that has been the issue. In particular making the burden of proof of legality complex and retrospective with a default assumption of illegality.
Yes, the things I want from a post-EU immigration policy are clarity, transparency, accountability and equality. All people, irrespective of where they originate, should face the same policy when they seek to reside here.
IF someone wants to come here with a skill we need, it shouldn't matter from where they come for getting a visa, work permit or whatever - the same rules should reply to someone from Azerbaijan, Argentina, Austria or Australia.
The system should be clear, available and disputes need to be resolved quickly, accurately and fairly not leaving individuals in a limbo of uncertainty for years if not decades.
Miss Vance, unsurprising. Stringing out talks so that we're faced with cliff-edge or capitulation has always been their strategy.
Mr. Sandpit, 'twas a cunning bet.
Still a bit miffed by Perez. Again. Second year in a row. Could've, should've, had a 201 winner last year, and was a tiny margin off a 401 winner this time. And that after bad luck in the first two races.
Mind you, I am ahead overall, so, given all the above, that's pretty good.
Britain’s parliament should not be given powers to overturn the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said on Monday as opponents seek a greater say on the Brexit deal.
Miss Vance, unsurprising. Stringing out talks so that we're faced with cliff-edge or capitulation has always been their strategy.
Mr. Sandpit, 'twas a cunning bet.
Still a bit miffed by Perez. Again. Second year in a row. Could've, should've, had a 201 winner last year, and was a tiny margin off a 401 winner this time. And that after bad luck in the first two races.
Mind you, I am ahead overall, so, given all the above, that's pretty good.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Evershed, indeed.
Ironically Grosjean f***ing up denied me a 4/1 winner but gave me a 6/1 winner instead
Massive odds outsiders never come off until they do. What was the price on Perez for a podium I Wonder?
I’m quite pleased to have come out of that race ahead, it was always going to be a lottery. Never before seen Lewis so ambivalent at getting a win, although of course he’ll happily take the 25 points. Bottas must be gutted, he lost at least 18 points if not the full 25.
Britain’s parliament should not be given powers to overturn the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said on Monday as opponents seek a greater say on the Brexit deal.
Britain’s parliament should not be given powers to overturn the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said on Monday as opponents seek a greater say on the Brexit deal.
Britain’s parliament should not be given powers to overturn the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said on Monday as opponents seek a greater say on the Brexit deal.
That’s two 33/1 bets/tips I’ve won in just over 12 hours
I’m Tipster of the Year.
Sadly, OGH scrapped the annual TOTY award after the Twin Towers were shamefully deprived of a well-deserved win some years ago, when a very,very aged and otherwise highly distinguished member of the PB community decided to manipulate the poll.
Comments
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/990668380750442496?s=19
Javid is a non practicing Muslim and described his household this way in 2010:
"My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity."
So not exactly a jihadi zealot!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43784251
I would guess this might be one of those issues where a Royal Commission might actually be a productive process.
Berlusconi too is another example of a Baldie who won and as you mention in your article so was IKE
Sorry: you may be well intentioned but I think you are naive in thinking that anything would be done for these women, even if the evidence was there.
If sanctioned brothels are to be licensed and taxed, they will need to issue receipts etc. You think men will want to use them and risk being found out by their wives, girlfriends etc......?
And what might the punishments for going to non-sanctioned brothels be?
It seems very unwise of her the previous week to blame the Windrush issue on civil servants, as even if asked directly a sir-Humphrey style mandarin could talk about an ambition to remove illegal immigrants, an objective of removing all non resident criminals at the end of their sentence, an intention to increase the percentage of removals. Not a target in sight!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0uhGgsrrJg
The sanction for visiting an illegal brothel would presumably be defined in the licencing legislation but I'd have thought that a moderate fine should suffice (given that a successful prosecution would of itself bring unwelcome publicity and a criminal record). The heavy sentencing should apply to the brothel-keepers.
Oh, wait...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43881389
It might be interesting to compare it with the swing towards or against the Conservatives over that period.
Meanwhile the new HS needs to find an easy way of giving ILR to those who have clearly lived here for decades. Getting rid of a couple of layers of Sir Humphreys might be a good starting point there, empowering those on the front line to make quick decisions.
As for the American politician’s interventions they are beneath contempt.
In Westminster someone with a full-time job works until 26 November to pay the rent for the year. That's 3 working days less than in 2011.
Average wage: £ 32,882 a year after tax.
Average rent: £ 29,904 a year, £ 1,308 more than in 2011.
Should be OK for the Tories then now rents are more affordable in Westminster
At this point it crossed my mind that if they are here illegally then how do we know how many there are? Helpfully Mr Gardiner then clarified this saying it wasn't possible for the home office to know. Sadly Jo Coburn didn't pick him up on this.
It is similar to one of the reasons thatI am so pleased to see the back of teacher assessment in science GCSEs: it removes the temptation to mark someone down because they have been inattentive all year, or to give someone else a more than reasonable benefit of the doubt because they are always so keen in lessons.
Sanctioned brothels can issue all the receipts they want. It doesn't stop the punter from not taking it. I often don't take them from the supernarket. It's a silly argument.
I would advocate short prison sentences for using illegal brothels in this context. The presumption should be that illegal brothels are using trafficked girls, so punishments for use should be proportionate with that.
'England and America are two countries divided by a common language' - George Bernard Shaw
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/990933980680806405
https://twitter.com/chunkymark/status/990937849787834369
But for me, what might on paper have seemed like major ethical quandaries turned out to be easy decisions in practice.
You cannot sit at the bedside of, say, those in the final throes of a very painful death and not hope for it to be (a) less painful and (b) shorter.
I think it is something about the inevitability that makes it easier - some of Alfie's self-professed supporters seemed to think he had >0% chance of a recovery and that fact alone gave them a reason to fight.
IF someone wants to come here with a skill we need, it shouldn't matter from where they come for getting a visa, work permit or whatever - the same rules should reply to someone from Azerbaijan, Argentina, Austria or Australia.
The system should be clear, available and disputes need to be resolved quickly, accurately and fairly not leaving individuals in a limbo of uncertainty for years if not decades.
It’s one of the reasons I am happy with the hereditary principle.
People who have useful skills, can earn high salaries and stay out of trouble should be welcomed with open arms.
In the middle we have a whole bunch of people who are stuck in limbo, we need to register them and give them passports or ID cards. A temporary immigrant should get an ID card that doubles as an NI card and has an expiry date on it. Every other country in the world does this!!!
We need to be really harsh on employers, if there’s a dodgy car wash in a supermarket car park then we need to fine the supermarket chain landlord a percentage of their annual turnover.
Ironically, a lot of the Windrush-type problems are that people didn’t find themselves coming into contact with authorities for many years. I feel genuinely sorry for them and we need to sort them out quickly and fairly.
Seems astonishing in the present climate that they’re going ahead with this. One woman has already been removed from the flight list, and others are appealing.
Mr. Sandpit, well, quite.
So much for "EU fudge".....
Oh, and Hartley was confirmed in 10th place, so I somehow managed to finish 19% up on my F1 bets yesterday.
Sounds like fun (from 3500 miles away)
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigration-rules-statement-of-changes
Each link on the page lead to another large document of changes...the number of which made over time is mind-boggling.
Mr. Sandpit, 'twas a cunning bet.
Still a bit miffed by Perez. Again. Second year in a row. Could've, should've, had a 201 winner last year, and was a tiny margin off a 401 winner this time. And that after bad luck in the first two races.
Mind you, I am ahead overall, so, given all the above, that's pretty good.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Evershed, indeed.
Blackadder 3 and the actors with their heroic pose was some years earlier.
The government is being given no breathing space at all.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-parliament/uk-parliament-should-not-be-able-to-overturn-eu-referendum-uk-pm-spokesman-idUSKBN1I10WG
Massive odds outsiders never come off until they do. What was the price on Perez for a podium I Wonder?
I’m quite pleased to have come out of that race ahead, it was always going to be a lottery. Never before seen Lewis so ambivalent at getting a win, although of course he’ll happily take the 25 points. Bottas must be gutted, he lost at least 18 points if not the full 25.
Netanyahu has called a special meeting of his Security Cabinet before he is set to speak on a 'significant development' on the Iran nuclear deal.
His speech follows the visit by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo yesterday, during which the pair discussed Iran and the accord.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5674503/Israeli-PM-Netanyahu-says-reveal-dramatic-news-Iran-nuclear-deal.html
Just off to check on the nuclear bomb shelter at the end of the garden...
Interesting that Vettel, despite now being 2nd in the title race, remains slight odds on favourite.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/990964050497626113
As of now both Hamilton and Vettel can be backed to win the title at odds against.
Vettel 2.08, Hamilton 2.32.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/motor-sport/event/28455074/market?marketId=1.136273652
I’m on both but more on Lewis.
Perhaps May should second the suggestion ?
New Thread, btw.
https://www.citymetric.com/guide-2018-london-elections-borough-westminster-wandsworth-hillingdon-barnet