You do have to wonder if part of the negative publicity about AZ is also because it's not for profit, from others whose vaccines are.
The basics of contract law are not difficult for non-lawyers to understand, so I can only assume that Dave Keating is being deliberately and wilfully misleading.
Well they think a moral obligation is stronger than a contractual obligation.
With God perhaps, not in a legal dispute.
Reminds of me the old joke.
Q: What's the difference between God and a lawyer?
A: God doesn't think he's a lawyer.
Well, no, He tends to give out laws, not so big on enforcing them.
The police and the government have a public relations disaster on their hands not least because the vigil - whatever really happened, and most of us weren't there - was one which millions of rural and small town tory voting parents can imagine their own daughters attending and completely agree with them.
I was absolutely astonished to read the news this morning of what happened. I had assumed a way would be found to allow these vigils to happen with the police doing the lightest of light touch observing and preferably not getting into the TV pictures at all. But no.
You do have to wonder if part of the negative publicity about AZ is also because it's not for profit, from others whose vaccines are.
The basics of contract law are not difficult for non-lawyers to understand, so I can only assume that Dave Keating is being deliberately and wilfully misleading.
Well they think a moral obligation is stronger than a contractual obligation.
With God perhaps, not in a legal dispute.
Reminds of me the old joke.
Q: What's the difference between God and a lawyer?
A: God doesn't think he's a lawyer.
Well, no, He tends to give out laws, not so big on enforcing them.
I disagree. He ensures all sinners turn into Newcastle fans.
Before I go out and enjoy the sunshine (socially distanced of course), was interesting what a certain backbench MP put on a WhatsApp this morning.
Roy Greenslade unwavering in his support of terror and some journalists refuse or are slow to denounce it and yet no one calls the whole journalistic profession into repute. Wayne Couzens murders someone, is denounced by all officers and now all cops are bastards according to some.
Just a shame some folk can’t see there’s flawed humans being a uniform trying to do their best. Maybe as they get older their anti police views will soften.
Your argument seems to have shifted from people are going in with an ingrained hatred of the police, to that because of this murder those people are saying all cops are bastards, that is this incident has provoked peoples' reactions not their ingrained view.
It is true that most police are flawed human beings trying to do their best. But in many areas their best has not been good enough, and people might feel that is being a bit harsh, but police have unique positions of power over ordinary citizens - they absolutely should be held to a higher account, there absolutely should be little leeway given to poor behaviour, and if they display a disregard for basic principles of procedure and justice and refuse to accept critiques of their behaviours, as with the Henriques report, that absolutely should be condemned.
I do not hate the police, as an institution or individuals. I think that too often the public are poorly served by them. Some of that is due to the laws and guidance and funding they are provided with, but that cannot shield from things like poor operational practice and resistance to improve in the face of criticism.
Covid, I've seen several families in my street today have visits of grandkids and children in their gardens, or to go for walks with them instead. People aren't waiting for 29th March.
Can't say I blame them. Scotland is already allowing this, case numbers are tiny and evidence of transmission outside almost non-existent.
Before I go out and enjoy the sunshine (socially distanced of course), was interesting what a certain backbench MP put on a WhatsApp this morning.
Roy Greenslade unwavering in his support of terror and some journalists refuse or are slow to denounce it and yet no one calls the whole journalistic profession into repute. Wayne Couzens murders someone, is denounced by all officers and now all cops are bastards according to some.
Just a shame some folk can’t see there’s flawed humans being a uniform trying to do their best. Maybe as they get older their anti police views will soften.
1. Wayne Couzens has been charged, not convicted. 2. It's the police's leadership that is being criticised - not individual officers who operate within the culture created by that leadership. 3. The local MP says the local police's "softly softly" tactics were countermanded by higher ups.
Luisa Porritt, London mayoral candidate for the LibDems, must have been given a significant boost.
Perhaps if anyone had heard of her.
I’ve had one pamphlet pushed through my door...for Brian Rose.
Luisa is an appealing candidate with attractive policies. Hopefully she'll get more exposure in the coming weeks. https://www.luisa4london.co.uk/
She’s got some interesting policies there. Homes in he heart of the city could be a real winner. She’s clearly on the saner end of the Lib Dem spectrum. It’s a shame she seems to be virtually non existent in what I have seen of the campaign nationally.
Luisa is a great candidate! Her issue is traction - does anyone care what policies the LibDems propose in London.
Its a one horse race in London. Had the Tories put up a candidate with a brain they might have been able to challenge Khan. Sadly they picked Shaun Bailey and seemingly have given him an open remit to say the most stupid and offensive things possible on a regular basis.
I think your post demonstrates there is some snobbery from the liberal left about Shaun Bailey, a BAME candidate from a working class background who spent some time homeless he is not a traditional Tory candidate but some of his policies have been very positive eg building properties for £100,000 for first time buyers in London.
I doubt any other Tory candidate would be doing much better in Lonon
Snobbery? He's an absolute fucking moron. The colour of his skin isn't the issue, its what he says that is the problem.
You would be much happier with the liberal Eton and Oxford educated, upper class white male Rory Stewart, than the BAME state school and South Bank University educated social conservative Shaun Bailey.
You would of course still not vote for Stewart anyway. If you wish to state that is not snobbery that is up to you, the rest of us will draw our own conclusions.
As I said he has put forward several positive policies, including to help more Londoners get on the housing ladder
As I live in Scotland and not London I wouldn't vote for any of them. I do though love how in Tory land the alternative to Bailey is an old Etonian. You don't have any other members of the party?
Given the leader of the Labour Party went to private school himself it is hardly just a Tory issue.
No problem with good independent school products but no reason for the snobbishness around Bailey just because he is a social conservative and state and non Oxbridge educated
The problem with Bailey is that he is a bad candidate. He will get the lowest Tory vote in the history of London Mayoral elections.
Khan deserves a proper contest.
The Leader of the Labour did not GO to a private school. Wkipedia says 'Starmer was born in London and raised in Surrey, where he attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became an independent school while he was a student.' Presumably arrangements were made for those boys who, like Starmer, had entered the school via the 11+ but might well have had difficulty with the fees, to remain, as he did, until he'd finished the VIth Form.
We don't *know* that he would have been unable to pay the fees. His family were, after all, quite comfortably off.
Equally, given he is if not the flashiest politician ever clearly a very able man I have no doubt he could have got a scholarship.
We don't know and therefore I think it's unwise to be dogmatic one way or another.
While I agree, Ydoethur, that dogmatism is, as usual, unwise, my point was that when the youthful Kier Starmer entered the school, entrance was via the 11+, so he no more 'went' to an independent school than Teresa May 'went' to a comprehensive. The schools which each attended changed status while they were pupils.
Luisa Porritt, London mayoral candidate for the LibDems, must have been given a significant boost.
Perhaps if anyone had heard of her.
I’ve had one pamphlet pushed through my door...for Brian Rose.
Luisa is an appealing candidate with attractive policies. Hopefully she'll get more exposure in the coming weeks. https://www.luisa4london.co.uk/
She’s got some interesting policies there. Homes in he heart of the city could be a real winner. She’s clearly on the saner end of the Lib Dem spectrum. It’s a shame she seems to be virtually non existent in what I have seen of the campaign nationally.
Luisa is a great candidate! Her issue is traction - does anyone care what policies the LibDems propose in London.
Its a one horse race in London. Had the Tories put up a candidate with a brain they might have been able to challenge Khan. Sadly they picked Shaun Bailey and seemingly have given him an open remit to say the most stupid and offensive things possible on a regular basis.
I think your post demonstrates there is some snobbery from the liberal left about Shaun Bailey, a BAME candidate from a working class background who spent some time homeless he is not a traditional Tory candidate but some of his policies have been very positive eg building properties for £100,000 for first time buyers in London.
I doubt any other Tory candidate would be doing much better in Lonon
Snobbery? He's an absolute fucking moron. The colour of his skin isn't the issue, its what he says that is the problem.
You would be much happier with the liberal Eton and Oxford educated, upper class white male Rory Stewart, than the BAME state school and South Bank University educated social conservative Shaun Bailey.
You would of course still not vote for Stewart anyway. If you wish to state that is not snobbery that is up to you, the rest of us will draw our own conclusions.
As I said he has put forward several positive policies, including to help more Londoners get on the housing ladder
As I live in Scotland and not London I wouldn't vote for any of them. I do though love how in Tory land the alternative to Bailey is an old Etonian. You don't have any other members of the party?
Given the leader of the Labour Party went to private school himself it is hardly just a Tory issue.
No problem with good independent school products but no reason for the snobbishness around Bailey just because he is a social conservative and state and non Oxbridge educated
The problem with Bailey is that he is a bad candidate. He will get the lowest Tory vote in the history of London Mayoral elections.
Khan deserves a proper contest.
The Leader of the Labour did not GO to a private school. Wkipedia says 'Starmer was born in London and raised in Surrey, where he attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became an independent school while he was a student.' Presumably arrangements were made for those boys who, like Starmer, had entered the school via the 11+ but might well have had difficulty with the fees, to remain, as he did, until he'd finished the VIth Form.
We don't *know* that he would have been unable to pay the fees. His family were, after all, quite comfortably off.
Equally, given he is if not the flashiest politician ever clearly a very able man I have no doubt he could have got a scholarship.
We don't know and therefore I think it's unwise to be dogmatic one way or another.
While I agree, Ydoethur, that dogmatism is, as usual, unwise, my point was that when the youthful Kier Starmer entered the school, entrance was via the 11+, so no no more ;went' to an independent school than Teresa May 'went' to a comprehensive. The schools which each attended changed status while they were pupils.
I know, I was agreeing with you and criticising Hyufd. Apologies if that was unclear.
I hope Yougov poll this, the media are desperate to create a police backlash, but in fairness journos were quick to judge and there’s only one ‘correct’ viewpoint to ensure you don’t get abuse and a pile on from twitter’s radical majority. The public might actually think these people have no right to be out at 10pm ignoring covid and abusing the police.
The problem might be with how inconsistently the law is applied during protests (BLM, Liverpool fans, anti and pro statue protests) but given the courts, the police, the victim’s family told these people not to go and it kicked off during a pandemic, I have no problem with the police acting the way they did. They are not a punching bag for radical feminist and the Met did at least swiftly solve this horrible crime.
The vast majority peacefully and law abidingly respected Sarah’s memory in a sensible manner.
My friend was there, her Instagram feed is a pretty accurate video take of what happened last night. I saw no evidence of what you're talking about, it was peaceful until the police decided to make it otherwise. Whatever police propaganda you're reciting is bullshit.
His view seems to be uppity women should shut up.
Shame your view is all female cops are just punchbags.
What are you banging on about? Where's your evidence for this? Just something you read in the Daily Mail comments, I'm sure.
By all means complain about the consistent application of the rules but the idea that police bad protesters good is tiresome. The public are bored of selfish folk who think their cause/party/gathering is more important than public health.
So you have no evidence for your assertion that people at the vigil were being violent or hateful towards the police then? Thought not because there isn't any.
You're doing exactly what the Met do and fitting the evidence to your suspect. You want these women to be guilty and you're making things up to try and get to that endpoint. Maybe you should actually read about what happened last night, watch some of the videos circulating social media, read some first hand accounts and then make up your mind rather than just assuming police = good, protesters = bad and then fitting evidence to it.
Perhaps you haven’t watched the same videos or listened to police officer accounts then. Maybe you chose not to read the news and see the after hours gathering was banned and Sarah’s family didn’t want it to go ahead. Perhaps you’ve ignored the statements from sisters uncut towards the police prior to the event, perhaps you are a covid denier.
Either way I fully believe the police are under incredible strain and don’t deserve the shit certain journalists and activists are throwing at them for trying to do their job. Unlike almost all other jobs they have 50% more workload as crime has not stopped and yet they’re having to police the new laws of a pandemic too. It must be exhausting and that’s before this murder case. A lot of folk are sadly far too dismissive of the police until they’re the ones who need helping.
You are certainly making a lot of unsupported and unfounded allegations on here this morning. I am afraid the police - and in particular the Met - have a record of making stuff up to cover their own failings. I see absolutely no reason why we should believe their claims here given their past record.
He is making a lot of bad faith accusations. Even his small details are wrong (he was asking what the protesting women were doing out at 10pm; it all kicked off at 8pm).
He's doing exactly what the Met do and changing the evidence to fit his suspect.
Don't forget he's also doing the smearing just like the Met did with Jean Charles de Menezes.
Do you mean to tell me that De Mendes *wasn't* a coke head, rapist, illegal immigrant who stole a newspaper and ran from the police?
Not only that, he also said Allāhu ʾakbar just before the wonderful boys in blue shot him.
I still find it shocking that the office responsible for that mess is now the commissioner.
Does make you wonder if maybe the terrorists should have taken some of the blame alongside Dick...
What terrorists? Jean Charles de Menezes wasn't a terrorist, once again you're fitting the evidence to the suspect. The Met did this and they killed an innocent person.
You might not have been living in London in 2005 but the whole events arose from 7/7. Policing changed after that day in the UK and the Met were playing catch up. No chance the Brazilian lad died without the bus and tube bombings.
Whilst they were febrile times the police lied and tried to trash the guys reputation to save their own hides
Good to see the anti police and covid deniers have finally joined forces.
I hate to have to tell you (well to be fair I don't) but you are the one aligned with the covid deniers on here.
Nope, that’s you I’m afraid. Allison Pearson and Piers Corbyn are your friends. I’m against mass protests and gatherings during a pandemic, that’s a common sense view.
I was discussing this with a Labour colleague on the council - what sort of gatherings should we accept/support, what need to be dispersed? We agreed that a good test was to imagine a gathering for something we disagreed with, such as an anti-vaxxer protest.
Tentative view: crowds are in general undesirable at the moment, but freedom of expression shouldn't be constrained by more than necessary to prevent a major health risk. Specifically:
(1) If the organisers make a serious effort to work with the police to make social distancing work, that should be tried first. The failure to do that in the days before last night is just baffling/
(2) There needs to be a balance between public health safety and the urgency/immediate salience of the issue. A single vigil related to a recent murder is one thing where a way should be found, a rolling series of protests would be something else and simply wrong at the moment.
(3) The issue should always be the policy, not the individual trying to carry it out. Saying "Cressida Dick must go" is a distraction, unless she wantonly breached the policy.
@TheScreamingEagles I can't read the article, but aren't all judicial review cases subject to a merits test now?
The Government is now expected to consult on ways to stop lawyers appealing immigration rulings through the different levels of courts on hopeless cases.
One plan would see lawyers prevented from launching judicial reviews of Upper Tribunal immigration decisions, bringing the system back in line with previous years.
A new law will be passed to overturn a 2012 Supreme Court ruling which allowed these cases to be subject to judicial review.
So 75% of Scots do not want an indyref2 this year, a plurality do not want indyref2 for the next few years and the rest do not want indyref2 for up to 5 years ie until 2026 and well past the next UK general election in 2024
You always know that when the word ‘plurality’ appears in a HYUFD post, bullshittery is afoot. There are other signifiers of course..
Off thread.. couple of things.. in the Times today.. woman says were just having a vigil ..properly . socially distanced.. alongside picture where there was no social distancing whatsoever....
Secondly.. love the Palace's response today.. independent inquiry whilst mentioning two staff hounded out.. a clear warning that our ordure is much more heavy than anything you can fling in our direction.. provable independent information rather than smear and innuendo.....
Clever move to have a legal firm do the investigation.
@TheScreamingEagles I can't read the article, but aren't all judicial review cases subject to a merits test now?
The Government is now expected to consult on ways to stop lawyers appealing immigration rulings through the different levels of courts on hopeless cases.
One plan would see lawyers prevented from launching judicial reviews of Upper Tribunal immigration decisions, bringing the system back in line with previous years.
A new law will be passed to overturn a 2012 Supreme Court ruling which allowed these cases to be subject to judicial review.
So currently, I assume, cases are held in the lower-tribunal and then appealed to the upper-tribunal, and then judicially reviewed as an additional "appeal" step?
I personally don't see a massive amount wrong with that in theory, especially if there's already been a chance to appeal, although I don't like blanket bans on judicial review generally.
Good to see the anti police and covid deniers have finally joined forces.
I hate to have to tell you (well to be fair I don't) but you are the one aligned with the covid deniers on here.
Nope, that’s you I’m afraid. Allison Pearson and Piers Corbyn are your friends. I’m against mass protests and gatherings during a pandemic, that’s a common sense view.
Again you wilfully ignore the fact that the only others on here who have been arguing for the police action last night are the anti-lockdown loons. It seems we need to add you to their number.
*Raises hand* - as an anti-lockdown loon, I challenge this. I'm AGAINST restrictions to freedom of association. (Let's set aside the arguments about where the balance should lie between individual liberties and collective responsibilty here, apart from to note that I think the removal of individual liberties have been far too large - I accept that others place the balance elsewhere.As with most arguments, we're only disagreeing about where the balance lies.) Ideally, therefore, I wouldn't like to see legal restrictions on crowds AT ALL. (That doesn't mean I'm in favour of crowds in a pandemic, just that I don't want to see legal restrictions to them.) And I certainly don't want to see legal restrictions brutally enforced. That's the opposite of the greedom I want to see. That obviously applies whether it's gatherings I approve of or gatherings I don't. It's possible to vehemently disagree with a gathering and its aims while at the same time being fully opposed to the prevention of that gathering taking place. This all changes a bit should elements of the gathering start behaving like twats (see the antifa riots). I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that that was the case last night. I wouldn't object to police being a bit heavy handed with protestors who are throwing rocks at them. I could even understand, if not condone, the patience of individual officers snapping at protestors who turn up purely for the opportunity of unleashing tirades of abuse at individual policemen (again, I'm thinking of certain scenes from the antifa riots.) But I haven't seen anything to suggest that was the case last night. TLDR - 1) Don't conflate two different arguments on the sole basis that you disagree with both of them; 2) I would generally conflate lockdown-scepticism with OPPOSITION to heavy-handed policing of lockdown breaking, rather than the reverse.
Before I go out and enjoy the sunshine (socially distanced of course), was interesting what a certain backbench MP put on a WhatsApp this morning.
Roy Greenslade unwavering in his support of terror and some journalists refuse or are slow to denounce it and yet no one calls the whole journalistic profession into repute. Wayne Couzens murders someone, is denounced by all officers and now all cops are bastards according to some.
Just a shame some folk can’t see there’s flawed humans being a uniform trying to do their best. Maybe as they get older their anti police views will soften.
1. Wayne Couzens has been charged, not convicted. 2. It's the police's leadership that is being criticised - not individual officers who operate within the culture created by that leadership. 3. The local MP says the local police's "softly softly" tactics were countermanded by higher ups.
One think that the police senior *management* team are quite expert at is selling the following:
1) Any criticism of their management is an attack on all police officers 2) Any spoken/written attack on all police officers is close to a criminal offence. 3) Therefore speaking against the management of the police is pretty much a crime.
Does a 3% swing SNP --> Conservative actually shift many seats?
Perthshire South and Kinrosshire and Edinburgh Pentlands would go from SNP to Conservative on a 3% swing on the Holyrood constituency vote
So, no.
A loss of 2 seats would probably not only ensure no SNP majority at Holyrood but as in different regions would almost certainly lead to a net loss of SNP seats in May.
A net loss of SNP seats and no majority would be as damaging to Sturgeon as the net loss of Tory seats and no majority was to May in 2017
I still say 2 isn't 'many'.
It would be enough to humiliate Sturgeon if it led to a net loss of SNP seats, which is likely as the loss of those 2 Holyrood constituencies in different regions would be unlikely to be compensated for by gains for the SNP on the list
If she suffers a net loss of two seats after 14 years in government and while mired in the worst scandal to hit a major government system in this country since the death of David Kelly I don't think we can say she has been 'humiliated.'
Given the SNP were heading for a big majority last year she would be if she ended up losing seats, as based on Salmond's evidence her government was responsible for that scandal
Off thread.. couple of things.. in the Times today.. woman says were just having a vigil ..properly . socially distanced.. alongside picture where there was no social distancing whatsoever....
Secondly.. love the Palace's response today.. independent inquiry whilst mentioning two staff hounded out.. a clear warning that our ordure is much more heavy than anything you can fling in our direction.. provable independent information rather than smear and innuendo.....
Clever move to have a legal firm do the investigation.
Isn't that best practise - having an outside party do the investigation?
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
Who is this monolithic "the left"? London graduate renters, who overwhelmingly vote Labour, have no interest in keeping the status quo. They are some of the biggest supporters of affordable housing because they literally want to buy a house themselves.
Most of them move out of London to buy or at least to the outer suburbs, Labour councils and Khan have no wish to make them home owning Tory voters
What exactly are you trying to say? That there's some grand conspiracy by Labour London Boroughs to keep house prices high to stop "graduates turning into Tories"?
I mean that may be true, although I doubt it, that certainly doesn't represent the views of most Labour voters. Most Labour voters want affordable housing and sensible house prices, especially in Southern England.
Of course people move out of London to the outer suburbs precisely because it's more affordable...
Most London Labour councils and Khan to do not want cheap housing to buy in London as while renters vote Labour, home owners tend to vote Tory.
Hence inner London is overwhelmingly Labour where house prices are highest and most rent, outer London gets a bit more Tory as housing to buy gets a bit cheaper and once you get outside of London where most people own their own homes the Tories are the majority
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
Who is this monolithic "the left"? London graduate renters, who overwhelmingly vote Labour, have no interest in keeping the status quo. They are some of the biggest supporters of affordable housing because they literally want to buy a house themselves.
Most of them move out of London to buy or at least to the outer suburbs, Labour councils and Khan have no wish to make them home owning Tory voters
What exactly are you trying to say? That there's some grand conspiracy by Labour London Boroughs to keep house prices high to stop "graduates turning into Tories"?
I mean that may be true, although I doubt it, that certainly doesn't represent the views of most Labour voters. Most Labour voters want affordable housing and sensible house prices, especially in Southern England.
Of course people move out of London to the outer suburbs precisely because it's more affordable...
Most London Labour councils and Khan to do not want cheap housing to buy in London as while renters vote Labour, home owners tend to vote Tory.
Good to see the anti police and covid deniers have finally joined forces.
I hate to have to tell you (well to be fair I don't) but you are the one aligned with the covid deniers on here.
Nope, that’s you I’m afraid. Allison Pearson and Piers Corbyn are your friends. I’m against mass protests and gatherings during a pandemic, that’s a common sense view.
I was discussing this with a Labour colleague on the council - what sort of gatherings should we accept/support, what need to be dispersed? We agreed that a good test was to imagine a gathering for something we disagreed with, such as an anti-vaxxer protest.
Tentative view: crowds are in general undesirable at the moment, but freedom of expression shouldn't be constrained by more than necessary to prevent a major health risk. Specifically:
(1) If the organisers make a serious effort to work with the police to make social distancing work, that should be tried first. The failure to do that in the days before last night is just baffling/
(2) There needs to be a balance between public health safety and the urgency/immediate salience of the issue. A single vigil related to a recent murder is one thing where a way should be found, a rolling series of protests would be something else and simply wrong at the moment.
(3) The issue should always be the policy, not the individual trying to carry it out. Saying "Cressida Dick must go" is a distraction, unless she wantonly breached the policy.
Agreed.
As a matter of interest, did Corbyn ever make a serious effort to work with police ? The organisers of yesterday’s vigil seemed to have made great efforts to do so before being rebuffed.
(There’s also the point that kettling protestors, or arresting them, involves a great deal more close physical contact than would allowing a well organised event to go ahead with precautions agreed in advance.)
Good to see the anti police and covid deniers have finally joined forces.
I hate to have to tell you (well to be fair I don't) but you are the one aligned with the covid deniers on here.
Nope, that’s you I’m afraid. Allison Pearson and Piers Corbyn are your friends. I’m against mass protests and gatherings during a pandemic, that’s a common sense view.
Again you wilfully ignore the fact that the only others on here who have been arguing for the police action last night are the anti-lockdown loons. It seems we need to add you to their number.
*Raises hand* - as an anti-lockdown loon, I challenge this. I'm AGAINST restrictions to freedom of association. (Let's set aside the arguments about where the balance should lie between individual liberties and collective responsibilty here, apart from to note that I think the removal of individual liberties have been far too large - I accept that others place the balance elsewhere.As with most arguments, we're only disagreeing about where the balance lies.) Ideally, therefore, I wouldn't like to see legal restrictions on crowds AT ALL. (That doesn't mean I'm in favour of crowds in a pandemic, just that I don't want to see legal restrictions to them.) And I certainly don't want to see legal restrictions brutally enforced. That's the opposite of the greedom I want to see. That obviously applies whether it's gatherings I approve of or gatherings I don't. It's possible to vehemently disagree with a gathering and its aims while at the same time being fully opposed to the prevention of that gathering taking place. This all changes a bit should elements of the gathering start behaving like twats (see the antifa riots). I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that that was the case last night. I wouldn't object to police being a bit heavy handed with protestors who are throwing rocks at them. I could even understand, if not condone, the patience of individual officers snapping at protestors who turn up purely for the opportunity of unleashing tirades of abuse at individual policemen (again, I'm thinking of certain scenes from the antifa riots.) But I haven't seen anything to suggest that was the case last night. TLDR - 1) Don't conflate two different arguments on the sole basis that you disagree with both of them; 2) I would generally conflate lockdown-scepticism with OPPOSITION to heavy-handed policing of lockdown breaking, rather than the reverse.
You are right in everything substantive you say but wrong in your initial protest and in your conclusion. It is set theory again.
The anti-lockdown loons were here last night arguing that in favour of the police action because it proved their point that lockdowns were wrong. That you may not have been amongst them does not make that statement untrue.
In data, policy and politics, Britain does pay more attention to race and discrimination than most European countries. We know how Covid-19 illuminated inequalities in health, work and housing. That discussion has barely begun in France – not because those disparities won’t exist, but because that data is not even collected. But the comparative lens is of little relevance to lived experience. If recent graduates in Birmingham worry that their ethnic-sounding surname means they might expect fewer job interviews than a white British peer with an identical CV, why should they feel lucky that the odds might be worse in Bologna or Budapest?
The transition from Tory toff to anti police activist is complete lol
I know you're not very bright, but I've been consistently very dubious about the police. It crystalised in 2002 when I lived and worked in London and I hurt my knee and a black friend for three weeks drove me to work and home, and in that three week period he was stopped six times, his crime, being black and driving a nice car.
It isn't anti police to point out that the police have a history of lying and covering up.
How about Hillsborough, how about the time they tried to fit up a cabinet minister.
Doesn't it worry you that they thought they could frame a cabinet with impunity?
A British broadcaster has said she does not know whether her husband will ever have any kind of life again in an interview describing the “horror story” of his year with coronavirus.
Kate Garraway, a presenter on Good Morning Britain, recounted the months since Derek Draper, a 53-year-old former political adviser and lobbyist, was first hospitalised last March.
A year on, he remains in intensive care, experiencing only “fleeting glimmers of consciousness”, Garraway told the Sunday Times magazine.
Although the virus not been present in Draper’s body since the late summer, it has led to kidney failure, damage to his liver and pancreas and heart failure.
He has holes in his lungs following bacterial pneumonia and several infections. Doctors do not know why the virus has had such a destructive effect on Draper’s health and have said it is unlikely he will make a full recovery, Garraway said.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
All these (EU) countries suspending AZ vaccine programmes using the "precautionary principle". They do know that Covid causes blood clots and kills people, right? Or are they just deciding that as they don't have much AZ to use anyway, there's no harm in suspending its use?
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
Who is this monolithic "the left"? London graduate renters, who overwhelmingly vote Labour, have no interest in keeping the status quo. They are some of the biggest supporters of affordable housing because they literally want to buy a house themselves.
Most of them move out of London to buy or at least to the outer suburbs, Labour councils and Khan have no wish to make them home owning Tory voters
What exactly are you trying to say? That there's some grand conspiracy by Labour London Boroughs to keep house prices high to stop "graduates turning into Tories"?
I mean that may be true, although I doubt it, that certainly doesn't represent the views of most Labour voters. Most Labour voters want affordable housing and sensible house prices, especially in Southern England.
Of course people move out of London to the outer suburbs precisely because it's more affordable...
Most London Labour councils and Khan to do not want cheap housing to buy in London as while renters vote Labour, home owners tend to vote Tory.
Good to see the anti police and covid deniers have finally joined forces.
I hate to have to tell you (well to be fair I don't) but you are the one aligned with the covid deniers on here.
Nope, that’s you I’m afraid. Allison Pearson and Piers Corbyn are your friends. I’m against mass protests and gatherings during a pandemic, that’s a common sense view.
I was discussing this with a Labour colleague on the council - what sort of gatherings should we accept/support, what need to be dispersed? We agreed that a good test was to imagine a gathering for something we disagreed with, such as an anti-vaxxer protest.
Tentative view: crowds are in general undesirable at the moment, but freedom of expression shouldn't be constrained by more than necessary to prevent a major health risk. Specifically:
(1) If the organisers make a serious effort to work with the police to make social distancing work, that should be tried first. The failure to do that in the days before last night is just baffling/
(2) There needs to be a balance between public health safety and the urgency/immediate salience of the issue. A single vigil related to a recent murder is one thing where a way should be found, a rolling series of protests would be something else and simply wrong at the moment.
(3) The issue should always be the policy, not the individual trying to carry it out. Saying "Cressida Dick must go" is a distraction, unless she wantonly breached the policy.
Agree with all of that. In my view it’s also very important to flag that the police do have, and should use, such discretion. Indeed that’s what we pay the senior ranks for, and that’s why the relevant ACC and Dick (I don’t believe she wouldn’t have been fully briefed) need to consider their positions.
Policing only works by consent, and in this country we (rightly) give them almost complete operational freedom. That means they have to take responsibility when it goes wrong though. No sloping shoulders and no blaming “the law”.
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
Who is this monolithic "the left"? London graduate renters, who overwhelmingly vote Labour, have no interest in keeping the status quo. They are some of the biggest supporters of affordable housing because they literally want to buy a house themselves.
Most of them move out of London to buy or at least to the outer suburbs, Labour councils and Khan have no wish to make them home owning Tory voters
What exactly are you trying to say? That there's some grand conspiracy by Labour London Boroughs to keep house prices high to stop "graduates turning into Tories"?
I mean that may be true, although I doubt it, that certainly doesn't represent the views of most Labour voters. Most Labour voters want affordable housing and sensible house prices, especially in Southern England.
Of course people move out of London to the outer suburbs precisely because it's more affordable...
Most London Labour councils and Khan to do not want cheap housing to buy in London as while renters vote Labour, home owners tend to vote Tory.
That doesn't backup anything you've said. Objecting to certain policies that MAY reduce house prices overall doesn't suggest a grand conspiracy to keep house prices high, unbeknown to actual Labour voters.
Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
Who is this monolithic "the left"? London graduate renters, who overwhelmingly vote Labour, have no interest in keeping the status quo. They are some of the biggest supporters of affordable housing because they literally want to buy a house themselves.
Most of them move out of London to buy or at least to the outer suburbs, Labour councils and Khan have no wish to make them home owning Tory voters
What exactly are you trying to say? That there's some grand conspiracy by Labour London Boroughs to keep house prices high to stop "graduates turning into Tories"?
I mean that may be true, although I doubt it, that certainly doesn't represent the views of most Labour voters. Most Labour voters want affordable housing and sensible house prices, especially in Southern England.
Of course people move out of London to the outer suburbs precisely because it's more affordable...
Most London Labour councils and Khan to do not want cheap housing to buy in London as while renters vote Labour, home owners tend to vote Tory.
That doesn't backup anything you've said. Objecting to certain policies that MAY reduce house prices overall doesn't suggest a grand conspiracy to keep house prices high, unbeknown to actual Labour voters.
You really do reach.
Oh absolutely it backsup everything I said.
As keeping house prices in London high and not building enough new affordable housing works to the advantage of Labour as it means most Londoners have to still rent and thus will continue to vote Labour and elect Labour councils, Labour assembly members, a Labour Mayor and Labour MPs.
At the last general election the Tories won 57% of owner occupiers and won mortgage holders 43% to 33% for Labour, Labour won private renters 46% to 31% for the Tories and Labour won social renters 45% to 33% for the Tories https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
Even if the Americans spontaneously decided to let the EU have some of this stuff I'm not sure how much use it would be. There probably aren't that many EU member states left that will dare to use it.
Ireland is the latest country to join the blood clot panic, according to reports.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
Kept his researchers busy for half an hour though. I dread to think what else they might have occupied their time with!
Of course, in normal times he and they would have been at Church.
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
Who is this monolithic "the left"? London graduate renters, who overwhelmingly vote Labour, have no interest in keeping the status quo. They are some of the biggest supporters of affordable housing because they literally want to buy a house themselves.
Most of them move out of London to buy or at least to the outer suburbs, Labour councils and Khan have no wish to make them home owning Tory voters
What exactly are you trying to say? That there's some grand conspiracy by Labour London Boroughs to keep house prices high to stop "graduates turning into Tories"?
I mean that may be true, although I doubt it, that certainly doesn't represent the views of most Labour voters. Most Labour voters want affordable housing and sensible house prices, especially in Southern England.
Of course people move out of London to the outer suburbs precisely because it's more affordable...
Most London Labour councils and Khan to do not want cheap housing to buy in London as while renters vote Labour, home owners tend to vote Tory.
That doesn't backup anything you've said. Objecting to certain policies that MAY reduce house prices overall doesn't suggest a grand conspiracy to keep house prices high, unbeknown to actual Labour voters.
You really do reach.
Oh absolutely it backsup everything I said.
As keeping house prices in London and not building enough new affordable housing works to the advantage of Labour as it means most Londoners have to rent and thus will continue to vote Labour and elect Labour councils, Labour assembly members, a Labour Mayor and Labour MPs.
At the last general election the Tories won 57% of owner occupiers and won mortgage holders 43% to 33% for Labour, Labour won private renters 46% to 31% for the Tories and Labour won social renters 45% to 33% for the Tories https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
To be clear, are you saying there's a grand conspiracy amongst the Labour Party to keep house prices high, unbeknown to actual Labour voters?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
I think there’s an affected argument going on between the usual suspects trying to make this a male/female argument. I think that’s nonsense and the thing that really matters is working through practical changes. There’s long term stuff like education and cultural norms, and there’s short term stuff like not turning off all the sodding street lights on environmental grounds when they are LEDs anyway and giving people a fighting change of being aware of their surroundings. I’d also submit proper regulation of taxis and taxi drivers; safe, plentiful and cheap public transport; and staff being present at stations and on trains.
All these (EU) countries suspending AZ vaccine programmes using the "precautionary principle". They do know that Covid causes blood clots and kills people, right? Or are they just deciding that as they don't have much AZ to use anyway, there's no harm in suspending its use?
Maybe they just enjoy lockdowns and dying, and want to have as much of both as possible?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Well it's one of those things isn't it. In an ideal world nobody would be "wary" of anyone but in some circumstances it's understandable to be wary. Of course being wary doesn't justify discrimination.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
I agree with the thread header that the 8/1 for 40-45% is value. The SNP vote is trending downwards and has been for about a month. That may end once the Salmond/Sturgeon spat comes to an end of course but I think it is reasonable to assume that the damage to Sturgeon is not over yet.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
The police throughout the UK have a difficult job. Most forces appear to do it with fewer cockups than the Met. Is the Met just too big to be effectively managed?
Good to see the anti police and covid deniers have finally joined forces.
I hate to have to tell you (well to be fair I don't) but you are the one aligned with the covid deniers on here.
Nope, that’s you I’m afraid. Allison Pearson and Piers Corbyn are your friends. I’m against mass protests and gatherings during a pandemic, that’s a common sense view.
Again you wilfully ignore the fact that the only others on here who have been arguing for the police action last night are the anti-lockdown loons. It seems we need to add you to their number.
*Raises hand* - as an anti-lockdown loon, I challenge this. I'm AGAINST restrictions to freedom of association. (Let's set aside the arguments about where the balance should lie between individual liberties and collective responsibilty here, apart from to note that I think the removal of individual liberties have been far too large - I accept that others place the balance elsewhere.As with most arguments, we're only disagreeing about where the balance lies.) Ideally, therefore, I wouldn't like to see legal restrictions on crowds AT ALL. (That doesn't mean I'm in favour of crowds in a pandemic, just that I don't want to see legal restrictions to them.) And I certainly don't want to see legal restrictions brutally enforced. That's the opposite of the greedom I want to see. That obviously applies whether it's gatherings I approve of or gatherings I don't. It's possible to vehemently disagree with a gathering and its aims while at the same time being fully opposed to the prevention of that gathering taking place. This all changes a bit should elements of the gathering start behaving like twats (see the antifa riots). I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that that was the case last night. I wouldn't object to police being a bit heavy handed with protestors who are throwing rocks at them. I could even understand, if not condone, the patience of individual officers snapping at protestors who turn up purely for the opportunity of unleashing tirades of abuse at individual policemen (again, I'm thinking of certain scenes from the antifa riots.) But I haven't seen anything to suggest that was the case last night. TLDR - 1) Don't conflate two different arguments on the sole basis that you disagree with both of them; 2) I would generally conflate lockdown-scepticism with OPPOSITION to heavy-handed policing of lockdown breaking, rather than the reverse.
You are right in everything substantive you say but wrong in your initial protest and in your conclusion. It is set theory again.
The anti-lockdown loons were here last night arguing that in favour of the police action because it proved their point that lockdowns were wrong. That you may not have been amongst them does not make that statement untrue.
It's very odd to be anti-lockdown and pro-policing of lockdown. Though I've also seen the reverse, typified by a highly political vicar of my acquaintance, who is wildly pro-lockdown, but also wildly in favour of protests (at least, protests that he happens to agree with). Neithset of views have internal consistency. (But then, do anyone's, if puahed hard enough?)
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
Kept his researchers busy for half an hour though. I dread to think what else they might have occupied their time with!
Of course, in normal times he and they would have been at Church.
British Airways will launch a digital global vaccine passport in time for the planned resumption of international travel on May 17.
Passengers who have had two Covid-19 jabs will be able to upload their vaccination details to the BA app on their smartphone to prove that they are safe to fly.
In a further attempt to entice passengers to fly with the airline, it is permanently bringing back free water and snacks in economy class on short-haul flights.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
Who is this monolithic "the left"? London graduate renters, who overwhelmingly vote Labour, have no interest in keeping the status quo. They are some of the biggest supporters of affordable housing because they literally want to buy a house themselves.
Most of them move out of London to buy or at least to the outer suburbs, Labour councils and Khan have no wish to make them home owning Tory voters
What exactly are you trying to say? That there's some grand conspiracy by Labour London Boroughs to keep house prices high to stop "graduates turning into Tories"?
I mean that may be true, although I doubt it, that certainly doesn't represent the views of most Labour voters. Most Labour voters want affordable housing and sensible house prices, especially in Southern England.
Of course people move out of London to the outer suburbs precisely because it's more affordable...
Most London Labour councils and Khan to do not want cheap housing to buy in London as while renters vote Labour, home owners tend to vote Tory.
That doesn't backup anything you've said. Objecting to certain policies that MAY reduce house prices overall doesn't suggest a grand conspiracy to keep house prices high, unbeknown to actual Labour voters.
You really do reach.
Oh absolutely it backsup everything I said.
As keeping house prices in London and not building enough new affordable housing works to the advantage of Labour as it means most Londoners have to rent and thus will continue to vote Labour and elect Labour councils, Labour assembly members, a Labour Mayor and Labour MPs.
At the last general election the Tories won 57% of owner occupiers and won mortgage holders 43% to 33% for Labour, Labour won private renters 46% to 31% for the Tories and Labour won social renters 45% to 33% for the Tories https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
To be clear, are you saying there's a grand conspiracy amongst the Labour Party to keep house prices high, unbeknown to actual Labour voters?
Please answer with 'yes' or 'no'.
Labour clearly wants to keep most Londoners renting yes, as that ensures they stay Labour voters.
If most Londoners owned their own properties there is a risk they could become Tory voters and obviously London Labour could not risk that!
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
I think there’s an affected argument going on between the usual suspects trying to make this a male/female argument. I think that’s nonsense and the thing that really matters is working through practical changes. There’s long term stuff like education and cultural norms, and there’s short term stuff like not turning off all the sodding street lights on environmental grounds when they are LEDs anyway and giving people a fighting change of being aware of their surroundings. I’d also submit proper regulation of taxis and taxi drivers; safe, plentiful and cheap public transport; and staff being present at stations and on trains.
Anyway trying to make this a straight male v female fight by weaponising gender (there are a fair few) will end up polarising opinion and only getting 40-45%% of people on their side, with some nasty social divisions as a side effect.
Those who limit it to advocating for fairness for women and reform of attitudes, and taking men with them on that journey, will get 80%+ of people on their side, as per the reaction to the vigil last night, and have a far better chance of successful change.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
Who is this monolithic "the left"? London graduate renters, who overwhelmingly vote Labour, have no interest in keeping the status quo. They are some of the biggest supporters of affordable housing because they literally want to buy a house themselves.
Most of them move out of London to buy or at least to the outer suburbs, Labour councils and Khan have no wish to make them home owning Tory voters
What exactly are you trying to say? That there's some grand conspiracy by Labour London Boroughs to keep house prices high to stop "graduates turning into Tories"?
I mean that may be true, although I doubt it, that certainly doesn't represent the views of most Labour voters. Most Labour voters want affordable housing and sensible house prices, especially in Southern England.
Of course people move out of London to the outer suburbs precisely because it's more affordable...
Most London Labour councils and Khan to do not want cheap housing to buy in London as while renters vote Labour, home owners tend to vote Tory.
That doesn't backup anything you've said. Objecting to certain policies that MAY reduce house prices overall doesn't suggest a grand conspiracy to keep house prices high, unbeknown to actual Labour voters.
You really do reach.
Oh absolutely it backsup everything I said.
As keeping house prices in London and not building enough new affordable housing works to the advantage of Labour as it means most Londoners have to rent and thus will continue to vote Labour and elect Labour councils, Labour assembly members, a Labour Mayor and Labour MPs.
At the last general election the Tories won 57% of owner occupiers and won mortgage holders 43% to 33% for Labour, Labour won private renters 46% to 31% for the Tories and Labour won social renters 45% to 33% for the Tories https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
To be clear, are you saying there's a grand conspiracy amongst the Labour Party to keep house prices high, unbeknown to actual Labour voters?
Please answer with 'yes' or 'no'.
Labour clearly wants to keep most Londoners renting yes, as that ensures they stay Labour voters.
If most Londoners owned their own properties there is a risk they could become Tory voters and obviously London Labour could not risk that!
You really are turning into a Trumpton conspiracy theorist. Christ.
The police throughout the UK have a difficult job. Most forces appear to do it with fewer cockups than the Met. Is the Met just too big to be effectively managed?
Even smaller forces screw up spectacularly.
South Yorkshire police is probably the worst public service organisation out there.
In recent years its failures include the Hillsborough disaster and coverup.
I agree with the thread header that the 8/1 for 40-45% is value. The SNP vote is trending downwards and has been for about a month. That may end once the Salmond/Sturgeon spat comes to an end of course but I think it is reasonable to assume that the damage to Sturgeon is not over yet.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
You inspired me to look at past turnout. Blimey, that’s a potential black swan for each side isn’t it?
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
The police throughout the UK have a difficult job. Most forces appear to do it with fewer cockups than the Met. Is the Met just too big to be effectively managed?
Even smaller forces screw up spectacularly.
South Yorkshire police is probably the worst public service organisation out there.
In recent years its failures include the Hillsborough disaster and coverup.
Good to see the anti police and covid deniers have finally joined forces.
I hate to have to tell you (well to be fair I don't) but you are the one aligned with the covid deniers on here.
Nope, that’s you I’m afraid. Allison Pearson and Piers Corbyn are your friends. I’m against mass protests and gatherings during a pandemic, that’s a common sense view.
Again you wilfully ignore the fact that the only others on here who have been arguing for the police action last night are the anti-lockdown loons. It seems we need to add you to their number.
*Raises hand* - as an anti-lockdown loon, I challenge this. I'm AGAINST restrictions to freedom of association. (Let's set aside the arguments about where the balance should lie between individual liberties and collective responsibilty here, apart from to note that I think the removal of individual liberties have been far too large - I accept that others place the balance elsewhere.As with most arguments, we're only disagreeing about where the balance lies.) Ideally, therefore, I wouldn't like to see legal restrictions on crowds AT ALL. (That doesn't mean I'm in favour of crowds in a pandemic, just that I don't want to see legal restrictions to them.) And I certainly don't want to see legal restrictions brutally enforced. That's the opposite of the greedom I want to see. That obviously applies whether it's gatherings I approve of or gatherings I don't. It's possible to vehemently disagree with a gathering and its aims while at the same time being fully opposed to the prevention of that gathering taking place. This all changes a bit should elements of the gathering start behaving like twats (see the antifa riots). I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that that was the case last night. I wouldn't object to police being a bit heavy handed with protestors who are throwing rocks at them. I could even understand, if not condone, the patience of individual officers snapping at protestors who turn up purely for the opportunity of unleashing tirades of abuse at individual policemen (again, I'm thinking of certain scenes from the antifa riots.) But I haven't seen anything to suggest that was the case last night. TLDR - 1) Don't conflate two different arguments on the sole basis that you disagree with both of them; 2) I would generally conflate lockdown-scepticism with OPPOSITION to heavy-handed policing of lockdown breaking, rather than the reverse.
You are right in everything substantive you say but wrong in your initial protest and in your conclusion. It is set theory again.
The anti-lockdown loons were here last night arguing that in favour of the police action because it proved their point that lockdowns were wrong. That you may not have been amongst them does not make that statement untrue.
It's very odd to be anti-lockdown and pro-policing of lockdown. Though I've also seen the reverse, typified by a highly political vicar of my acquaintance, who is wildly pro-lockdown, but also wildly in favour of protests (at least, protests that he happens to agree with). Neithset of views have internal consistency. (But then, do anyone's, if puahed hard enough?)
They aren’t. I think their argument last night was “if you’re in favour of lockdown you must automatically be in favour of universally policing it with a truncheon in the face”. Of course it’s a rubbish argument, but I think it’s the one they were making.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
British Airways will launch a digital global vaccine passport in time for the planned resumption of international travel on May 17.
Passengers who have had two Covid-19 jabs will be able to upload their vaccination details to the BA app on their smartphone to prove that they are safe to fly.
In a further attempt to entice passengers to fly with the airline, it is permanently bringing back free water and snacks in economy class on short-haul flights.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
I agree with the thread header that the 8/1 for 40-45% is value. The SNP vote is trending downwards and has been for about a month. That may end once the Salmond/Sturgeon spat comes to an end of course but I think it is reasonable to assume that the damage to Sturgeon is not over yet.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
You inspired me to look at past turnout. Blimey, that’s a potential black swan for each side isn’t it?
Yes. In the past it has been a particular problem for the Unionist parties but the reputation of Holyrood is surely at an all time low. Will disgusted of Edinburgh Pentlands outweigh disgusted of Dundee West? Hard to call. The disgraceful way the Committee have been obstructed by the Scottish government which still gets its support from its little green helpers brings the Parliament into disrepute but the leadership of the opposition parties is not exactly bringing people out onto the balustrades.
Off thread.. couple of things.. in the Times today.. woman says were just having a vigil ..properly . socially distanced.. alongside picture where there was no social distancing whatsoever....
Secondly.. love the Palace's response today.. independent inquiry whilst mentioning two staff hounded out.. a clear warning that our ordure is much more heavy than anything you can fling in our direction.. provable independent information rather than smear and innuendo.....
Clever move to have a legal firm do the investigation.
Isn't that best practise - having an outside party do the investigation?
Best practice is to have a good investigator do the investigation.
Do not assume that legal firms are best at doing investigations. Investigating is very different to litigating, which is where legal firm investigations tend to end up. Not saying that they can't be good. I started out as a litigator. But they are different skill sets. Too many automatically assume that lawyers are good investigators. They aren't.
But here an outside firm, especially one skilled in employment law, is absolutely the right choice. It is fairer to all parties, not least because there will be issues around what was done / not done especially by those who were told / aware and it makes it that much harder for its findings to be questioned.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
*Adds mathematics to the very long list of things Hyufd doesn't quite get*
"Douglas Murray engages in what of all the various ploys employed in waging the ludicrous War on Woke is perhaps the most common - making a mountain of a molehill."
Comments
It is true that most police are flawed human beings trying to do their best. But in many areas their best has not been good enough, and people might feel that is being a bit harsh, but police have unique positions of power over ordinary citizens - they absolutely should be held to a higher account, there absolutely should be little leeway given to poor behaviour, and if they display a disregard for basic principles of procedure and justice and refuse to accept critiques of their behaviours, as with the Henriques report, that absolutely should be condemned.
I do not hate the police, as an institution or individuals. I think that too often the public are poorly served by them. Some of that is due to the laws and guidance and funding they are provided with, but that cannot shield from things like poor operational practice and resistance to improve in the face of criticism.
Can't say I blame them. Scotland is already allowing this, case numbers are tiny and evidence of transmission outside almost non-existent.
2. It's the police's leadership that is being criticised - not individual officers who operate within the culture created by that leadership.
3. The local MP says the local police's "softly softly" tactics were countermanded by higher ups.
Far harder to get through that then three days of pb threads with a thousand comments a piece on each of them; it's like doing homework.
That was quite a match. Not maybe the highest quality of sides but an excellent contest that could still have gone either way on the final morning.
You ok with that?
Tentative view: crowds are in general undesirable at the moment, but freedom of expression shouldn't be constrained by more than necessary to prevent a major health risk. Specifically:
(1) If the organisers make a serious effort to work with the police to make social distancing work, that should be tried first. The failure to do that in the days before last night is just baffling/
(2) There needs to be a balance between public health safety and the urgency/immediate salience of the issue. A single vigil related to a recent murder is one thing where a way should be found, a rolling series of protests would be something else and simply wrong at the moment.
(3) The issue should always be the policy, not the individual trying to carry it out. Saying "Cressida Dick must go" is a distraction, unless she wantonly breached the policy.
https://twitter.com/jimfairlie/status/1370732962770255874?s=21
Admittedly, only for puns.
One plan would see lawyers prevented from launching judicial reviews of Upper Tribunal immigration decisions, bringing the system back in line with previous years.
A new law will be passed to overturn a 2012 Supreme Court ruling which allowed these cases to be subject to judicial review.
I'm wary of any change to that. Who's going to decide whether a case is arguable or not, if not judges, who I believe do it now?
Like I said though, article is behind paywall so I can't read the details.
I personally don't see a massive amount wrong with that in theory, especially if there's already been a chance to appeal, although I don't like blanket bans on judicial review generally.
I'm AGAINST restrictions to freedom of association. (Let's set aside the arguments about where the balance should lie between individual liberties and collective responsibilty here, apart from to note that I think the removal of individual liberties have been far too large - I accept that others place the balance elsewhere.As with most arguments, we're only disagreeing about where the balance lies.)
Ideally, therefore, I wouldn't like to see legal restrictions on crowds AT ALL. (That doesn't mean I'm in favour of crowds in a pandemic, just that I don't want to see legal restrictions to them.) And I certainly don't want to see legal restrictions brutally enforced. That's the opposite of the greedom I want to see.
That obviously applies whether it's gatherings I approve of or gatherings I don't. It's possible to vehemently disagree with a gathering and its aims while at the same time being fully opposed to the prevention of that gathering taking place.
This all changes a bit should elements of the gathering start behaving like twats (see the antifa riots). I haven't yet seen anything to suggest that that was the case last night. I wouldn't object to police being a bit heavy handed with protestors who are throwing rocks at them. I could even understand, if not condone, the patience of individual officers snapping at protestors who turn up purely for the opportunity of unleashing tirades of abuse at individual policemen (again, I'm thinking of certain scenes from the antifa riots.) But I haven't seen anything to suggest that was the case last night.
TLDR - 1) Don't conflate two different arguments on the sole basis that you disagree with both of them; 2) I would generally conflate lockdown-scepticism with OPPOSITION to heavy-handed policing of lockdown breaking, rather than the reverse.
,,,
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1371062302838038531
You know government is proposing bad legislation when David Lammy is pointing out the huge flaws in it.
1) Any criticism of their management is an attack on all police officers
2) Any spoken/written attack on all police officers is close to a criminal offence.
3) Therefore speaking against the management of the police is pretty much a crime.
Douglas Murray"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359085/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-told-question-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
Hence inner London is overwhelmingly Labour where house prices are highest and most rent, outer London gets a bit more Tory as housing to buy gets a bit cheaper and once you get outside of London where most people own their own homes the Tories are the majority
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1371059063707074560?s=20
As a matter of interest, did Corbyn ever make a serious effort to work with police ?
The organisers of yesterday’s vigil seemed to have made great efforts to do so before being rebuffed.
(There’s also the point that kettling protestors, or arresting them, involves a great deal more close physical contact than would allowing a well organised event to go ahead with precautions agreed in advance.)
The anti-lockdown loons were here last night arguing that in favour of the police action because it proved their point that lockdowns were wrong. That you may not have been amongst them does not make that statement untrue.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/14/those-who-shout-loudest-about-race-cannot-be-allowed-to-silence-others
https://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/22153-sarah-everard-banning-vigils-is-an-assault-on-our-rights-counterblast-reclaim-the-night
For some reason they also got the first interview with the arrestee.
(No - not claiming any more than circumstantial, and raising an eyebrow.)
A British broadcaster has said she does not know whether her husband will ever have any kind of life again in an interview describing the “horror story” of his year with coronavirus.
Kate Garraway, a presenter on Good Morning Britain, recounted the months since Derek Draper, a 53-year-old former political adviser and lobbyist, was first hospitalised last March.
A year on, he remains in intensive care, experiencing only “fleeting glimmers of consciousness”, Garraway told the Sunday Times magazine.
Although the virus not been present in Draper’s body since the late summer, it has led to kidney failure, damage to his liver and pancreas and heart failure.
He has holes in his lungs following bacterial pneumonia and several infections. Doctors do not know why the virus has had such a destructive effect on Draper’s health and have said it is unlikely he will make a full recovery, Garraway said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/mar/14/coronavirus-live-news-astrazeneca-reports-vaccine-shortfall-to-eu-sydney-hotel-quarantine-worker-tests-positive
That line will resonate. What a mess Dick and co have got into.
https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
https://www.cityam.com/sadiq-khan-misses-his-affordable-housing-target-for-second-straight-quarter/
https://www.cityam.com/khan-accused-of-cutting-affordable-housing-by-two-thirds-despite-4bn-grant/
Policing only works by consent, and in this country we (rightly) give them almost complete operational freedom. That means they have to take responsibility when it goes wrong though. No sloping shoulders and no blaming “the law”.
You really do reach.
As keeping house prices in London high and not building enough new affordable housing works to the advantage of Labour as it means most Londoners have to still rent and thus will continue to vote Labour and elect Labour councils, Labour assembly members, a Labour Mayor and Labour MPs.
At the last general election the Tories won 57% of owner occupiers and won mortgage holders 43% to 33% for Labour, Labour won private renters 46% to 31% for the Tories and Labour won social renters 45% to 33% for the Tories
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
Ireland is the latest country to join the blood clot panic, according to reports.
Of course, in normal times he and they would have been at Church.
Please answer with 'yes' or 'no'.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
That's the issue. I don't like people like Ash Sarkar who like to play intersectionality with it.
Though I've also seen the reverse, typified by a highly political vicar of my acquaintance, who is wildly pro-lockdown, but also wildly in favour of protests (at least, protests that he happens to agree with).
Neithset of views have internal consistency. (But then, do anyone's, if puahed hard enough?)
Passengers who have had two Covid-19 jabs will be able to upload their vaccination details to the BA app on their smartphone to prove that they are safe to fly.
In a further attempt to entice passengers to fly with the airline, it is permanently bringing back free water and snacks in economy class on short-haul flights.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-airways-rolls-out-vaccine-passports-and-free-snacks-to-get-us-flying-again-7nmh3sv50
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
If most Londoners owned their own properties there is a risk they could become Tory voters and obviously London Labour could not risk that!
Those who limit it to advocating for fairness for women and reform of attitudes, and taking men with them on that journey, will get 80%+ of people on their side, as per the reaction to the vigil last night, and have a far better chance of successful change.
South Yorkshire police is probably the worst public service organisation out there.
In recent years its failures include the Hillsborough disaster and coverup.
Rotherham.
Orgreave.
A surprising amount of journalists are simply stooges for the government.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Location=London-England:-London/Salary
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
https://twitter.com/mark_toshner/status/1370129206416379905?s=20
https://twitter.com/mark_toshner/status/1370292105147518980?s=20
The Irish had been quite sensible, up to now......
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1371011820161490945?s=20
https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1371060326813331462?s=20
Do not assume that legal firms are best at doing investigations. Investigating is very different to litigating, which is where legal firm investigations tend to end up. Not saying that they can't be good. I started out as a litigator. But they are different skill sets. Too many automatically assume that lawyers are good investigators. They aren't.
But here an outside firm, especially one skilled in employment law, is absolutely the right choice. It is fairer to all parties, not least because there will be issues around what was done / not done especially by those who were told / aware and it makes it that much harder for its findings to be questioned.
Kinabalu.