Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
Still on the hard left mantra. Still unable to actually identify any on here. Out of interest do I fall into the category of hard left? If I do god knows where you are on the left right spectrum.
Ah kjh! I've been expecting you!
I don't need to identify them. They identify themselves with their incessant stupidity on here.
As you ask, I think that you are - on the whole - a reasoned sensible contributor. I'm sure that will be a big comfort to you 👍.
Bugger. No it isn't. I wanted you to think I was some raving left wing nutter. That has ruined my impression of you as some raving right wing nutter.
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Really or just highlighting why Labour are a long way from power
It's got nothing to do with Labour or any party for that matter. It's what *we* believe in. For example, I believe in not punishing the poor of the World, not allowing defenceless migrants to drown. What do you believe in?
Exactly the same and indeed my son as a member of the RNLI will save any life at risk on the sea without question
Providing the RNLI is still able to send its boats out on a mission which makes its volunteers break the law. As others have pointed out thats a very difficult position for them to be in.
You literally will back anything this lot will do, even making your son a criminal.
Of course I do not and you are simply scaremongering
Anyway I have some work to do and I am 100% confident the RNLI will nor be prosecuted for saving any life at sea
Wilful pigheadedness. They may not end up prosecuted. But they are *open* to be prosecuted. You can't be this stupid which makes it wilful - back literally anything this government does.
I wonder if the BoE has forecast what the impact would be if/when we return to 'normalized' interest rates of circa 5% given we've been on close to zero for so long now?
Would surely have a major impact given the levels of household debt and cheap credit swirling round the system?
Interest rates are never going back to "normal". A lot of people would struggle to pay their mortgages in those circumstances.
Exactly. The US nor the UK Governments know exactly what would happen to mortgage holders if interest rates went up even to "sub-normal" levels of 2-3% and the effect on their economic and their re-election chances. We are staying in a world of (at most) 1% interest rates. Savers be damned
Well savers, and people trying to get on the housing ladder.
Though a moderately sustained pulse of inflation will take the choice out of everyone's hands. Headline interest rates will have to go up just to stand still, so to speak.
It may be possible to manage a soft landing, but it looks tricky. Especially at a time when supply and demand for goods and people is all over the place.
The ECB have stated that they will be ignoring current inflationary issues (I can't remember the exact phrase) so I suspect the BoE will be doing the same at the moment.
It was important for people like Edward Leigh to stop spending money on international development. Now that money is available for him to refuse to give to the poor, the hungry, the disabled, the sick etc.
To be fair to the Government, I wrote to the Home Secretary, who, as I've said before is MP for the constituency in which I live, expressing my concerns about the forthcoming requirement for ID when voting. She's replied, to the effect that a wide range of photographic passes.... bus passes and so on.... will be acceptable. She also said, and I quote 'expired photographic ID will be accepted as long as the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.'
I am by no means certain that the proposals will not cause problems and prevent people voting, but this does seem less illiberal than many of us feared.
I’d forgotten about that abortion of a policy.
Reminds me of Major’s comments yesterday on the government yacht project: nobody wants it, nobody asked for it, nobody knows what it’s for.
Yep but it's another example of all this Government's current policies - it's virtue and signal politics which won't actually solve anything but looks like they are being tough and gets a few nice headlines in the papers (Telegraph, Mail) they read.
And it's been an obsession of a certain type of Tory for decades. (Didn't Portillo make a big thing of it when he was angling for the Conservative leadership?) Basically the sort who actively resented Cameron's compromises with the electorate, especially when they won elections.
I assume your statement is in surprised admiration. I was impressed.
I would like to say how impressed I am with the dignified way the England players have dealt with everything. Very impressed indeed.
Baker finding an interesting point of differentiation in his leadership campaign. He might consider himself a hardman, but was actually one of the very few ERG who (on the whole) behaved politely and reasonably during Brexit so not surprised he is polite and reasonable on footballer knees as well.
Baker is literally the only Brexiter I can think of who has come through the shitshow with his reputation intact.
Yes, he seems to have dodged the performative culture war stuff, in a way that other Brexiteers do not.
I am green on him for next leader. Not least, he actually has some leadership qualities.
His problem is that Wycombe is rapidly becoming a marginal seat where Labour has a reasonable chance of winning.
Bucks is gaining a seat at the boundary review so Baker can try and grab the new Princes Risborough seat or he can follow Hazlemere and try to win Chesham and Amersham
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Really or just highlighting why Labour are a long way from power
It's got nothing to do with Labour or any party for that matter. It's what *we* believe in. For example, I believe in not punishing the poor of the World, not allowing defenceless migrants to drown. What do you believe in?
Exactly the same and indeed my son as a member of the RNLI will save any life at risk on the sea without question
Providing the RNLI is still able to send its boats out on a mission which makes its volunteers break the law. As others have pointed out thats a very difficult position for them to be in.
You literally will back anything this lot will do, even making your son a criminal.
Of course I do not and you are simply scaremongering
Anyway I have some work to do and I am 100% confident the RNLI will nor be prosecuted for saving any life at sea
Wilful pigheadedness. They may not end up prosecuted. But they are *open* to be prosecuted. You can't be this stupid which makes it wilful - back literally anything this government does.
In practice, was anyone ever prosecuted under the "anti-Woke" Section 28 in the Eighties? Nonetheless fear of prosecution affected behaviour.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
Whatever a government may "say" in parliament is irrelevant if it doesn't find itself in the bill/act. The burden after the act comes into force then transfers to a test case in the supreme court surely. Do we really want it to have to go all the way to there?
It is absolutely relevant
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
That’s when what the government says matters
Not correct. They attempt to determine the intention of parliament by looking at the legislation itself and applying a set of rules and presumptions to it. Inferior foreign legal systems permit reference to the travaux preparatoires, but we do things differently here.
It was important for people like Edward Leigh to stop spending money on international development. Now that money is available for him to refuse to give to the poor, the hungry, the disabled, the sick etc.
I seem to recall having read that aid the the Yemen is among those to be cut. Is that so, does anyone know?
I ask because I have a letter from James Cleverly from a couple of months ago which says, inter alia, "our funding for Yemen may increase, and indeed we have exceeded our annual pledge in previous years."
It’s simple. Most people crossing the channel by boat are economic migrants not asylum seekers. They belie eve they can get jobs here. As per the excellent video by @rcs1000 what we do is offer routes to legal status if illegals report their employers coupled with significant fines and prison time for those employers. It’s a demand side problem that will only get worse due to temporary staff shortages due to Brexit.
From a political point of view I can see why the government is pushing the RNLI bill. It's classic anti immigrant pandering to the Tory base. However the Online Harms bill just seems weird. This seems like just the kind of thing that Tory members would hate and can you imagine what their reaction would be if it was EU legislation.
I wonder if the BoE has forecast what the impact would be if/when we return to 'normalized' interest rates of circa 5% given we've been on close to zero for so long now?
Would surely have a major impact given the levels of household debt and cheap credit swirling round the system?
Interest rates are never going back to "normal". A lot of people would struggle to pay their mortgages in those circumstances.
Exactly. The US nor the UK Governments know exactly what would happen to mortgage holders if interest rates went up even to "sub-normal" levels of 2-3% and the effect on their economic and their re-election chances. We are staying in a world of (at most) 1% interest rates. Savers be damned
Well savers, and people trying to get on the housing ladder.
Though a moderately sustained pulse of inflation will take the choice out of everyone's hands. Headline interest rates will have to go up just to stand still, so to speak.
It may be possible to manage a soft landing, but it looks tricky. Especially at a time when supply and demand for goods and people is all over the place.
The ECB have stated that they will be ignoring current inflationary issues (I can't remember the exact phrase) so I suspect the BoE will be doing the same at the moment.
That's either tactical ignoring worthy of Nelson himself, or it's going to put petrol on the fire.
I'm not remotely qualified to tell which, except to note that the UK has some additional inflationary factors that won't affect the Eurozone.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
I wonder if the BoE has forecast what the impact would be if/when we return to 'normalized' interest rates of circa 5% given we've been on close to zero for so long now?
Would surely have a major impact given the levels of household debt and cheap credit swirling round the system?
Interest rates are never going back to "normal". A lot of people would struggle to pay their mortgages in those circumstances.
Exactly. The US nor the UK Governments know exactly what would happen to mortgage holders if interest rates went up even to "sub-normal" levels of 2-3% and the effect on their economic and their re-election chances. We are staying in a world of (at most) 1% interest rates. Savers be damned
Well savers, and people trying to get on the housing ladder.
Though a moderately sustained pulse of inflation will take the choice out of everyone's hands. Headline interest rates will have to go up just to stand still, so to speak.
It may be possible to manage a soft landing, but it looks tricky. Especially at a time when supply and demand for goods and people is all over the place.
The ECB have stated that they will be ignoring current inflationary issues (I can't remember the exact phrase) so I suspect the BoE will be doing the same at the moment.
That's either tactical ignoring worthy of Nelson himself, or it's going to put petrol on the fire.
I'm not remotely qualified to tell which, except to note that the UK has some additional inflationary factors that won't affect the Eurozone.
Isn’t this part of the mutual debasing we assumed would happen post covid?
I wonder if the BoE has forecast what the impact would be if/when we return to 'normalized' interest rates of circa 5% given we've been on close to zero for so long now?
Would surely have a major impact given the levels of household debt and cheap credit swirling round the system?
Interest rates are never going back to "normal". A lot of people would struggle to pay their mortgages in those circumstances.
Exactly. The US nor the UK Governments know exactly what would happen to mortgage holders if interest rates went up even to "sub-normal" levels of 2-3% and the effect on their economic and their re-election chances. We are staying in a world of (at most) 1% interest rates. Savers be damned
Well savers, and people trying to get on the housing ladder.
Though a moderately sustained pulse of inflation will take the choice out of everyone's hands. Headline interest rates will have to go up just to stand still, so to speak.
It may be possible to manage a soft landing, but it looks tricky. Especially at a time when supply and demand for goods and people is all over the place.
The ECB have stated that they will be ignoring current inflationary issues (I can't remember the exact phrase) so I suspect the BoE will be doing the same at the moment.
That will always be a cricket authority first, and a central bank second. It makes things very difficult for me.
The first issue needs further lawyerly analysis. It is inconceivable that the RNLI or Coastguard, or any ship, obeying the law of the sea is going to be successfully prosecuted. Will not their obvious defence already be written into maritime law?
Is the second matter an attempt to deal with then problem of people who are not in truth asylum seekers building a late and false case? I don't know the answer, but the Court of Appeal is frequently reluctant to consider late fresh evidence without very strong reason.
In the third matter, we are at early stages of dealing with a novel problem. For myself I believe that the internet should be seen as being as much a place of publishing as a bookshop, newspaper or book publisher. Currently we allow every Hitler, every holocaust denier, every anti Semite to be their own consequence free, anonymous if desired, international publisher to every person on the planet. This cannot be sustained. So criticism of the government proposals need, as in every case, to be backed by a better solution.
So why do we get such legislation. The reason is not, I think, a desire to prosecute the RNLI. Or censor the Guardian.
It comes from reaction to other actions.
For example, in the world of immigration law, it has long been a practise to time the production of evidence in a case to extend the process.
Michael Howard, back in the day, raised a great deal of ire, when he changed procedures at the Home Office. At the time, the practise was, that when an asylum seeker claimed they would be persecuted in a particular country, for a particular reason, that a report could be requested specifically for this case.
So, late in the process, a request would be raised. Say, that France was a failed state and the asylum seeker would face a terrible fate there.
The report writing was slow and the process clogged with repeated requests.
What Michael Howard did was to rule that reports could be reused for a certain time period (a year at least, I think) and that certain countries (such as EU members) were ruled to not to be a hazard to various groups.
The question is how to stop ill thought out legal responses to ill thought out legal hacks - a cycle that doesn't actually help anyone.
Except possibly the lawyers who draft the laws. And the lawyers looking for the loopholes....
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
Still on the hard left mantra. Still unable to actually identify any on here. Out of interest do I fall into the category of hard left? If I do god knows where you are on the left right spectrum.
Ah kjh! I've been expecting you!
I don't need to identify them. They identify themselves with their incessant stupidity on here.
As you ask, I think that you are - on the whole - a reasoned sensible contributor. I'm sure that will be a big comfort to you 👍.
Bugger. No it isn't. I wanted you to think I was some raving left wing nutter. That has ruined my impression of you as some raving right wing nutter.
You have no idea how much the two of you sound like a badly written radio play. But carry on.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Well said.
I am not sure how true that is. I am no lawyer BUT I am involved in trying to get the law changed for exactly this type of reason (completely unrelated). We had a 10 min bill to do so which died because of the last general election. We have another in a few weeks. It has cross party support in particular with many Conservatives, yet we are 9 years on and the original law is being applied even though it contradicts the intention and what ministers confirmed when the original law was passed.
Precisely the point.
Shit law ALWAYS gets applied in ways not considered by the legislators.
We just be vigilant and hand waving this stuff away will not help Arthur Miggins, of Beachhaven, Sussex, imprisoned for rescuing a pair of drowning refugees.
In the case I am involved in the law did not anticipate a particular scenario. When the law was passed the minister at the time in the debate made it very clear what the purpose of the law was and it specifically covered that scenario. We have argued case law where a judge (I can't remember the case and can't be bothered to look it up) in a summing up said where an 'absurd' situation arises you can look to the intention of the law and what was said in the debate. We argued this point. There was a refusal to look at Hansard which would have cleared everything up because it was not deemed 'absurd'. I assume this is because the law is quite clear, even though it is the opposite to what was intended. I assume 'absurd' refers to where it contradicts itself.
We are trying to get a 10 min bill passed that will allow the parliamentary ombudsman to review a case which currently they can't do because of an oversight in the original legislation. So for those here who say 'that won't happen'; it does.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
Still on the hard left mantra. Still unable to actually identify any on here. Out of interest do I fall into the category of hard left? If I do god knows where you are on the left right spectrum.
Ah kjh! I've been expecting you!
I don't need to identify them. They identify themselves with their incessant stupidity on here.
As you ask, I think that you are - on the whole - a reasoned sensible contributor. I'm sure that will be a big comfort to you 👍.
Bugger. No it isn't. I wanted you to think I was some raving left wing nutter. That has ruined my impression of you as some raving right wing nutter.
You have no idea how much the two of you sound like a badly written radio play. But carry on.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Well said.
I am not sure how true that is. I am no lawyer BUT I am involved in trying to get the law changed for exactly this type of reason (completely unrelated). We had a 10 min bill to do so which died because of the last general election. We have another in a few weeks. It has cross party support in particular with many Conservatives, yet we are 9 years on and the original law is being applied even though it contradicts the intention and what ministers confirmed when the original law was passed.
Precisely the point.
Shit law ALWAYS gets applied in ways not considered by the legislators.
We just be vigilant and hand waving this stuff away will not help Arthur Miggins, of Beachhaven, Sussex, imprisoned for rescuing a pair of drowning refugees.
In the case I am involved in the law did not anticipate a particular scenario. When the law was passed the minister at the time in the debate made it very clear what the purpose of the law was and it specifically covered that scenario. We have argued case law where a judge (I can't remember the case and can't be bothered to look it up) in a summing up said where an 'absurd' situation arises you can look to the intention of the law and what was said in the debate. We argued this point. There was a refusal to look at Hansard which would have cleared everything up because it was not deemed 'absurd'. I assume this is because the law is quite clear, even though it is the opposite to what was intended. I assume 'absurd' refers to where it contradicts itself.
We are trying to get a 10 min bill passed that will allow the parliamentary ombudsman to review a case which currently they can't do because of an oversight in the original legislation. So for those here who say 'that won't happen'; it does.
IIRC the first people prosecuted under the anti-fox hunting legislation were a couple whose terrier, while they were on a walk, went after a fox.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
It was important for people like Edward Leigh to stop spending money on international development. Now that money is available for him to refuse to give to the poor, the hungry, the disabled, the sick etc.
I seem to recall having read that aid the the Yemen is among those to be cut. Is that so, does anyone know?
I ask because I have a letter from James Cleverly from a couple of months ago which says, inter alia, "our funding for Yemen may increase, and indeed we have exceeded our annual pledge in previous years."
With a bit of luck we can sell even more ordnance to the Saudis with which to bomb the shit out of the Yemen thus providing more money for aid to the Yemen: win win!
The hapless numpty they had on Newsnight last night to polish this particular turd said that the cuts would only be for the ‘bad’ aid (dictators’ gold plated toilets, Indian space programme etc) while the ‘good’ aid may even go up, so there is that.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
It was important for people like Edward Leigh to stop spending money on international development. Now that money is available for him to refuse to give to the poor, the hungry, the disabled, the sick etc.
I seem to recall having read that aid the the Yemen is among those to be cut. Is that so, does anyone know?
I ask because I have a letter from James Cleverly from a couple of months ago which says, inter alia, "our funding for Yemen may increase, and indeed we have exceeded our annual pledge in previous years."
With a bit of luck we can sell even more ordnance to the Saudis with which to bomb the shit out of the Yemen thus providing more money for aid to the Yemen: win win!
The hapless numpty they had on Newsnight last night to polish this particular turd said that the cuts would only be for the ‘bad’ aid (dictators’ gold plated toilets, Indian space programme etc) while the ‘good’ aid may even go up, so there is that.
Makes me think of Milo from C22. He'd appreciate the beauty of the Yemen paradox.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Are you a QC? I accept that QCs job is to interpret the law, but that is the heart of our legal system. Its just that there are QCs lining up pointing out the stupidity of this bill, with you, Big_G and the press officer at the Home Office saying "no it's fine".
This would hardly be the first time that a piece of legislation has directly classed with other legislation. As I said in my original post on this, the government would be happy with the clash between this law and the Human Rights Act going to court. We know which of the two they would be attacking.
I try not to reveal too much in the way of personal details online so I don't answer questions about how I earn a living. Sorry.
The government can attack the HRA all it likes. The HRA is clear that it trumps all other legislation (clauses 3 and 4). They can't get around that and somehow claim that the Nationality and Borders Bill can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with the ECHR. All legislation, without exception, must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the ECHR.
What happens if/when the ECHR and HRA are jettisoned?
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
So why do we get such legislation. The reason is not, I think, a desire to prosecute the RNLI. Or censor the Guardian.
It comes from reaction to other actions.
For example, in the world of immigration law, it has long been a practise to time the production of evidence in a case to extend the process.
Michael Howard, back in the day, raised a great deal of ire, when he changed procedures at the Home Office. At the time, the practise was, that when an asylum seeker claimed they would be persecuted in a particular country, for a particular reason, that a report could be requested specifically for this case.
So, late in the process, a request would be raised. Say, that France was a failed state and the asylum seeker would face a terrible fate there.
The report writing was slow and the process clogged with repeated requests.
What Michael Howard did was to rule that reports could be reused for a certain time period (a year at least, I think) and that certain countries (such as EU members) were ruled to not to be a hazard to various groups.
The question is how to stop ill thought out legal responses to ill thought out legal hacks - a cycle that doesn't actually help anyone.
Except possibly the lawyers who draft the laws. And the lawyers looking for the loopholes....
The usual whine is "they should have claimed asylum somewhere else they passed through" - which if enforced would at a stroke stop pretty much anyone claiming asylum. Unless you have the means to fly here directly from wherever you are fleeing you cannot claim asylum - that is what such complainants want.
The problem of course is what you then do with the people who do arrive here. Can't deport them to France, in many cases can't deport them home as they'll get murdered.
What we should do is get back to the values this country supposedly believes in - basic human decency and compassion. yes of course you can claim asylum here and if its genuine then you will be welcome. If it is false then we will deport you.
Instead its fear of the forrin, Schrodingers migrants here to take both our jobs and sponge on "benefits". Would be better if they all drowned say the people responding to the Nigel's videos. We have been groomed to be a national of nasty bastards.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Hmm. Would the courts not seek to look at the RNLI's explicit mission/objectives? Do they mention migrants specifically?
And what would it do for the RNLI to (say) add such a clause? How would Tory Britain react?
Strikes me that this kind of over the top stuff from Johnson is precisely what is causing trouble in places like C&A. Patel might think it plays well in the Red Wall and that's all they care about at the moment, but that is exactly why they lost the by-election.
So why do we get such legislation. The reason is not, I think, a desire to prosecute the RNLI. Or censor the Guardian.
It comes from reaction to other actions.
For example, in the world of immigration law, it has long been a practise to time the production of evidence in a case to extend the process.
Michael Howard, back in the day, raised a great deal of ire, when he changed procedures at the Home Office. At the time, the practise was, that when an asylum seeker claimed they would be persecuted in a particular country, for a particular reason, that a report could be requested specifically for this case.
So, late in the process, a request would be raised. Say, that France was a failed state and the asylum seeker would face a terrible fate there.
The report writing was slow and the process clogged with repeated requests.
What Michael Howard did was to rule that reports could be reused for a certain time period (a year at least, I think) and that certain countries (such as EU members) were ruled to not to be a hazard to various groups.
The question is how to stop ill thought out legal responses to ill thought out legal hacks - a cycle that doesn't actually help anyone.
Except possibly the lawyers who draft the laws. And the lawyers looking for the loopholes....
The usual whine is "they should have claimed asylum somewhere else they passed through" - which if enforced would at a stroke stop pretty much anyone claiming asylum. Unless you have the means to fly here directly from wherever you are fleeing you cannot claim asylum - that is what such complainants want.
The problem of course is what you then do with the people who do arrive here. Can't deport them to France, in many cases can't deport them home as they'll get murdered.
What we should do is get back to the values this country supposedly believes in - basic human decency and compassion. yes of course you can claim asylum here and if its genuine then you will be welcome. If it is false then we will deport you.
Instead its fear of the forrin, Schrodingers migrants here to take both our jobs and sponge on "benefits". Would be better if they all drowned say the people responding to the Nigel's videos. We have been groomed to be a national of nasty bastards.
The issue I was talking about was the (mis)-use of the asylum seeking process to try and time out legal proceedings. So, suddenly, after *years* of a process, a new claim of evidence is found at 11:59.
My personal thought is to allow the evidence. And fine the *lawyer* heavily, for wasting the court/immigration services time.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
That's only an issue if you think your opponents will ever be in power again. Which the current version of the currently governing party simply can't imagine.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Hmm. Would the courts not seek to look at the RNLI's explicit mission/objectives? Do they mention migrants specifically?
And what would it do for the RNLI to (say) add such a clause? How would Tory Britain react?
Strikes me that this kind of over the top stuff from Johnson is precisely what is causing trouble in places like C&A. Patel might think it plays well in the Red Wall and that's all they care about at the moment, but that is exactly why they lost the by-election.
Remove Red Wall and replace it with former Brexit Party voters / targets and the issue is clearer.
Boris and co are going for those voters to the annoyance (and lose) of former middle of the road (so conservative) Convervative voters.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Agreed. As I have said on here before, it's a long way from being over.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
Prosecute the RNLI? Governments were happy enough to prosecute subpostmasters who were innocent.
Technically it was the Post Office prosecuting subpostmasters because they believed the expensive smoothtalking IT consultants they talked to rather than the people their employed.
Prosecute the RNLI? Governments were happy enough to prosecute subpostmasters who were innocent.
On a point of pedantry, were not the unfortunate subpostmasters prosecuted by the PO's own prosecution service? But I can't remember if the PO was still nationalised at the start of the relevant period.
It was certainly happy enough to see them prosecuted.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
It's a weird bit of drafting. Subs 3(b) looks unnecessary because 1(a) says for gain anyway. And say there's an organised UK mafia of immigrants from evilstan which assists evilstani asylum seekers for free because of blood or gang ties - can it rely on the exemption?
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Nope the question starts at how do you define what people trafficking actually is?
Once you've defined that you can then start to see how you make it a criminal offence.
Which was why the "for profit" clause was used for so long...
Mr. Malmesbury, can't comment on the cost of gym membership, but keeping fit needn't cost much.
I got my exercise bike for about £60 or so. Running only requires a top, shorts, and trainers.
The problem is cultural. As various, sometimes a bit loudmouthed, people have observed, modern fashion is about spending your day dressed in sports equipment*
There are quite a few council run gyms, swimming pools etc. The ones near me are free to the un-employed and extremely cheap for students.
This isn't about "poor people" per se. There is an extensive fitness culture in *parts* of the most deprived areas - the problem is that there cultural sub-areas where fitness isn't a priority.
One thing is a the time/tiredness point, which is often raised. As a counter point, I would raise the example of people working in underpinning in construction. That is, manually digging basements. Quite a number of them finish their shifts - then go to the gym! Yes, you'd think....
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Why is the RNLI issue a clear lie? I have not read the bill so I don't know, but Cyclefree's analysis seems quite clear.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
Also it's worth saying that processed food may be getting worse at the moment. Alongside Shrinkflation (where packet sizes are reduced but prices remain the same) a lot of products are being reformulated to use cheaper ingredients.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
Really?
Go to Tescos and see just how cheap vegetables are. For the £3 it costs to get a happy meal you can get a weeks worth of good vegetables for two kids no problem.
In 1987 there were probably one or two instruction cooking shows a week, there are hundreds now on Freeview
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
I would say that crap prepared meals are easier to *access* than fresh food, rather than *ultimately cheaper*.
My daughter learned to cook* at her primary school, a comprehensive. Mandatory lessons - for both boy and girls. As part of "life skills' - included button sewing etc.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
And I’d hazard that 1987 “cooking lessons” had almost nothing to do with nutrition. The reverse, indeed.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
Which is going to be impossible to fix as since 1987 home economics has concentrated on the economics side of things rather than the practical side of things (as having a fully equipped home economic department is expensive).
The Nationality and Borders Bill does indeed make it an offence to help an asylum seeker enter the country regardless of whether you are doing it for reward. However, it excludes people acting on behalf of organisations that aim to assist asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. Whilst it is not the primary aim of either RNLI or HM Coastguard, that description appears to cover both. In any event, the chances of the courts convicting a member of either organisation for helping asylum seekers in distress at sea is nil. Interpreting the legislation in that way would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Under that Act, the ECHR must be used to interpret UK law and the right to live is one of the central rights. A law that required RNLI to leave people to drown would clearly be incompatible with the HRA so, even if this bill did that (which I don't think it does), the courts would not accept such an interpretation. Whilst it would not harm the bill to add wording to specifically protect RNLI and HM Coatsguard, the reality is that such wording is not required. The Home Office is correct.
Sticking to that bill, clause 23 does NOT say that late evidence must be given minimal weight regardless of the reason. It says that late evidence must be given minimal weight "unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late" (clause 23(2)). Cyclefree's arguments on this clause therefore fail as they are based on something the bill categorically does not say. If you have a good reason for supplying evidence late, the evidence must be given weight.
Finally, the actual wording of the Online Safety Bill (which is only in draft form at the moment) requires removal of content where the service provider has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a material risk of "significant" psychological harm. So not "may cause psychological harm". but "a material risk of significant psychological harm", which is rather different. Yes, there is a possibility that pressure groups may seek to misuse this bill if it is introduced and becomes law, but that is a risk with any legislation that seeks to make service providers liable for failure to remove content that is harmful to children (something covered by the bill that Cyclefree chooses to ignore) or adults.
Good post. However, I am not convinced that the RNLI could plead that it is 'an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services' and get off the hook in relation to a conviction under this law, nor could it fall back on an argument that the legislation it would be convicted under is inconsistent with human rights law, to prove that would be a drawn out procedural mess. Reliance on vague notions that 'it'll never happen' or home office press releases is flawed, I agree with @Cyclefree on that. The legislation needs to be completely redrafted.
With regard to the online safety bill, "a material risk of significant psychological harm" is a very subjective test; one of many examples of bad law bought forward by various governments over the last 2 or so decades. Another example of government traipsing over ancient wisdom about precision in drafting legislation, to the detriment of us all.
I fail to see why proving that an interpretation of the legislation that allows RNLI volunteers to be convicted for rescuing people is incompatible with the HRA would be a drawn out procedural mess. It would, in fact, be very simple. Any Crown Court judge would throw out a prosecution on that basis very quickly.
Yes, the test of "material risk of significant psychological harm" is going to be subjective but so are many tests in law. To some degree that is why the interpretation of some laws has changed over time. The test for obscenity, for example, is highly subjective. The interpretation today is very different from the 1950s. If banning harmful content is a legitimate objective, it is hard to see how that can be accomplished without a subjective test. Indeed, putting in an objective test risks that test becoming outdated as attitudes change.
Okay - your position seems to be that it is okay for the government to bring in legislation that the RNLI could be prosecuted under, as they could use the human rights act in their defence when the matter proceeded to a trial. But there would still be an arrest, charging and a massive wait for the trial to start, as well as massive legal costs in preparing a defence. That is what I mean by a procedural mess, causing significant psychological harm (!) and stress for the people involved. Why go there? Secondly, if you are right, the same defence could be relied on by anyone involved in "saving lives", which anyone could argue if they were trying to help an overloaded inflatable dinghy negotiate a busy shipping lane. If they have a defence under the human rights act, why bother with the law? It brings in to question the motivation on the part of the executive in pursuing this; parliament should throw it out.
On the second point, I don't think that banning harmful online content is a particularly good objective. It is thoroughly illiberal. If we are going down this road the threshold should be much more tightly drawn, ie inciting some sort of defined unlawful behaviour. The current law, as I understand it from these exchanges, merely requires proof of a risk of significant psychological harm to one person. Anyone can plead harm for almost anything. We are going down a pathetic rabbit hole giving too much oxygen to self declared victims; the exact opposite of the supposed goals of the government. The future is not looking good.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
Really?
Go to Tescos and see just how cheap vegetables are. For the £3 it costs to get a happy meal you can get a weeks worth of good vegetables for two kids no problem.
In 1987 there were probably one or two instruction cooking shows a week, there are hundreds now on Freeview
Yes, you might be able to get £3 worth of vegetables, but it's a lazy assumption to think that's all the time, effort and cost needed to create healthy meals. There's the cost of additional equipment (which is festooned all over the cooking shows you describe) and the time and effort spent cooking these meals which for a working, poor parent can often be prohibitive.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
Really?
Go to Tescos and see just how cheap vegetables are. For the £3 it costs to get a happy meal you can get a weeks worth of good vegetables for two kids no problem.
In 1987 there were probably one or two instruction cooking shows a week, there are hundreds now on Freeview
It's a culture and ease-of-access problem.
If you haven't cooked before, and aren't adventurous, then trying to cook in the first place is a serious hurdle.
Being self starting (I rather hate that phrase but...) is not as common as you might think. To many people "haven't done that before" is a massive block.
By contrast, chucking a cheap frozen meal in the microwave is quick, simple, requires no skills etc. Same for takeaways.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
But you don't need expensive high quality fresh food.
Compare the price of a tin of beans or tomatoes with that of a bag of chips.
Or a bag of carrots to a pack of crisps.
Your point about cooking skills, or lack of, is a good one.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
This is true. I've seen many people come and go through my cycling club with the daunted expectation of losing weight. Very few can bear the agony of riding in the 'red' (the anaerobic fat burning zone) or even the effort it takes to get there as they have to deplete the glycogen in their muscles first. I basically have to ride at 250W+ for an hour before I go in the red.
When I was a stagiare semi pro we used to do a 100-150km training ride in the morning. Drink 2 litres of sparkling water to bloat the stomach and take a shitload of sleeping pills to knock us out until the next day so we wouldn't eat. That works.
Losing weight requires eating fewer calories than you need to maintain your weight, gaining weight is the opposite.
People make it sound difficult - but that is the reality. I am not saying it is easy to lose weight or eat fewer calories but the process itself is not difficult.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Why is the RNLI issue a clear lie? I have not read the bill so I don't know, but Cyclefree's analysis seems quite clear.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
Because as others have already pointed out
The Home Office have already said these provisions do not apply to the RNLI.
The Human Rights Act would trump this legislation and would protect the RNLI too.
International Maritime Law makes rescues a legal duty that can't be made illegal. That is domestic law too.
The Bill needs to go through Committee etc were amendments can be made if necessary, with the Government already having said (see (1)) that this is not targetting the RNLI.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I suggest that the 'Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture', certainly in England, is due to driving people off the land and into industrial work in the late 18th & throughout the 19th Centuries.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
Really?
Go to Tescos and see just how cheap vegetables are. For the £3 it costs to get a happy meal you can get a weeks worth of good vegetables for two kids no problem.
In 1987 there were probably one or two instruction cooking shows a week, there are hundreds now on Freeview
Yes, you might be able to get £3 worth of vegetables, but it's a lazy assumption to think that's all the time, effort and cost needed to create healthy meals. There's the cost of additional equipment (which is festooned all over the cooking shows you describe) and the time and effort spent cooking these meals which for a working, poor parent can often be prohibitive.
The cooking shows might be part of the problem, I think. To actually cook, you need very little equipment. Electric olive pitters are probably nice to have, but....
One part that seems forgotten is the idea of making dishes at home, pre-prepared - in the fridge, or frozen.
When I lived around Tower Hill, it was interesting to observe that the people most likely to cook at home were actually the very poorest, generally 1st generation immigrants.
I have a vested interest in this obese debate, as I - grew up poor - learned nothing practical from “home ec” - am obese, according to my BMI
Despite all the cooking shows, and the cheapness indeed of vegetables etc, I find the problem is simply that Anglo cultures don’t really look at cooking as a “craft” to be absorbed, but rather as a kind of “trick” to be memorised.
People talk about their “amazing” spag bol, but not the fact that almost everything starts with some kind of soffrito.
Bring cookery back into schools and start with the simple skill of chopping. Then move on to answer the question, how many ways can you prepare a carrot? What is the best?
I have a vested interest in this obese debate, as I - grew up poor - learned nothing practical from “home ec” - am obese, according to my BMI
Despite all the cooking shows, and the cheapness indeed of vegetables etc, I find the problem is simply that Anglo cultures don’t really look at cooking as a “craft” to be absorbed, but rather as a kind of “trick” to be memorised.
People talk about their “amazing” spag bol, but not the fact that almost everything starts with some kind of soffrito.
Bring cookery back into schools and start with the simple skill of chopping. Then move on to answer the question, how many ways can you prepare a carrot? What is the best?
There are nine and sixty ways to prepare a carrot. And each...
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I suggest that the 'Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture', certainly in England, is due to driving people off the land and into industrial work in the late 18th & throughout the 19th Centuries.
This is the traditional reason cited, and it certainly accounts for a lot. But it’s not the full story. Why is American food similarly “poor” when - until the later 19th century - it was fundamentally an agricultural country?
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
Crap food is cheaper than high quality fresh food.
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
Really?
Go to Tescos and see just how cheap vegetables are. For the £3 it costs to get a happy meal you can get a weeks worth of good vegetables for two kids no problem.
In 1987 there were probably one or two instruction cooking shows a week, there are hundreds now on Freeview
Yes, you might be able to get £3 worth of vegetables, but it's a lazy assumption to think that's all the time, effort and cost needed to create healthy meals. There's the cost of additional equipment (which is festooned all over the cooking shows you describe) and the time and effort spent cooking these meals which for a working, poor parent can often be prohibitive.
The cooking shows might be part of the problem, I think. To actually cook, you need very little equipment. Electric olive pitters are probably nice to have, but....
One part that seems forgotten is the idea of making dishes at home, pre-prepared - in the fridge, or frozen.
When I lived around Tower Hill, it was interesting to observe that the people most likely to cook at home were actually the very poorest, generally 1st generation immigrants.
Frozen can be difficult if you cannot afford a freezer/space for a freezer/be sure the electric is not going to be cut off for non payment.
If I was going into politics one of the first policies I would announce is bringing back mandatory cooking lessons into schools, to get the next generation learning to cook cheap and healthy meals. It might not be flashy or cool but over decades it will make a big difference.
Fat chance of the Tories doing it, they prefer to take stuff away from poor people. What say Labour?
With regard to the 'cheap food' debate, I wondered a few years ago whether the government could run its own food bank. Buy lots of cheap, healthy food and distribute it via supermarket delivery services to people who are in supposed food poverty. If it was scaled up, the cost could be minimal, a few quid per recipient per week. It would serve both health and economic objectives.
I have often wondered about the inefficiency of food banks. Were I to ever be in a position where I needed to use my local foodbank, which is on an out of town main road, I would need to get a bus which would cost about £5 return. I would need to wait and go through some sort of counselling by an unqualified volunteer. The operation needs a business premises, which is a cost, and relies on donations of food which must be random and unpredictable.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
Which is going to be impossible to fix as since 1987 home economics has concentrated on the economics side of things rather than the practical side of things (as having a fully equipped home economic department is expensive).
It hasn't quite died out- the last school I was in, and the one my tweenager goes to both have proper cooking of sensible food on the timetable.
But cooking is expensive to teach and takes time from subjects that contribute to school performance tables. And quite a lot of the new wave free schools (like Michaela in Brent) simply don't touch those sort of subjects at all.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I suggest that the 'Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture', certainly in England, is due to driving people off the land and into industrial work in the late 18th & throughout the 19th Centuries.
This is the traditional reason cited, and it certainly accounts for a lot. But it’s not the full story. Why is American food similarly “poor” when - until the later 19th century - it was fundamentally an agricultural country?
People have gone for tasty, easy, unhealthy stuff rather like potatoes and sugars rather than green vegetables?
We should absolutely not be lifting the mask laws, keep them in place.
I warned a few weeks ago about how we're going in the wrong direction, I just have a bad a feeling like I had before. And many here ridiculed me when I called for previous lockdowns but if you'd followed my timing we'd have been in a much better position.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I suggest that the 'Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture', certainly in England, is due to driving people off the land and into industrial work in the late 18th & throughout the 19th Centuries.
This is the traditional reason cited, and it certainly accounts for a lot. But it’s not the full story. Why is American food similarly “poor” when - until the later 19th century - it was fundamentally an agricultural country?
People have gone for tasty, easy, unhealthy stuff rather like potatoes and sugars rather than green vegetables?
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Why is the RNLI issue a clear lie? I have not read the bill so I don't know, but Cyclefree's analysis seems quite clear.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
Because as others have already pointed out
The Home Office have already said these provisions do not apply to the RNLI.
The Human Rights Act would trump this legislation and would protect the RNLI too.
International Maritime Law makes rescues a legal duty that can't be made illegal. That is domestic law too.
The Bill needs to go through Committee etc were amendments can be made if necessary, with the Government already having said (see (1)) that this is not targetting the RNLI.
And more points have been made too. Its nonsense.
1) Is incorrect as I have already pointed out. The Home Office can say what they like, it has no effect as Cyclefree pointed out and as I know from bitter experience (see my posts). 2) and 3) puts you in a position of laws conflicting. It is effectively the same as 1) except the position is in doubt rather than being certain. Slightly better but you don't want to be in that fight. 4) I accept, but then I said that in my post, but this sort of thing just results in a terrible muddle, with loopholes and unintended consequences as I pointed out in my example and as others have also done.
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
Still on the hard left mantra. Still unable to actually identify any on here. Out of interest do I fall into the category of hard left? If I do god knows where you are on the left right spectrum.
Ah kjh! I've been expecting you!
I don't need to identify them. They identify themselves with their incessant stupidity on here...
If that's the test, some might be forgiven for suspecting you of hard left tendencies yourself.
With regard to the 'cheap food' debate, I wondered a few years ago whether the government could run its own food bank. Buy lots of cheap, healthy food and distribute it via supermarket delivery services to people who are in supposed food poverty. If it was scaled up, the cost could be minimal, a few quid per recipient per week. It would serve both health and economic objectives.
I have often wondered about the inefficiency of food banks. Were I to ever be in a position where I needed to use my local foodbank, which is on an out of town main road, I would need to get a bus which would cost about £5 return. I would need to wait and go through some sort of counselling by an unqualified volunteer. The operation needs a business premises, which is a cost, and relies on donations of food which must be random and unpredictable.
Most food banks use church halls.
And round here the food bank has multiple locations during the week to ensure most people have walkable options.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I suggest that the 'Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture', certainly in England, is due to driving people off the land and into industrial work in the late 18th & throughout the 19th Centuries.
This is the traditional reason cited, and it certainly accounts for a lot. But it’s not the full story. Why is American food similarly “poor” when - until the later 19th century - it was fundamentally an agricultural country?
People have gone for tasty, easy, unhealthy stuff rather like potatoes and sugars rather than green vegetables?
Well, our green (and other coloured vegetables) are not as ripe and sweet. It’s no surprise that it’s Mediterranean countries that developed the best food cultures I suppose.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The problem with these claims is that a visit to any deprived area reveals obesity and overpriced grotty takeaways rather than hunger and rickets.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
If anyone doesn't believe me:
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
The reason is quite simple - the exercise culture.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
I don’t think this is true, or rather it is true but not the reason.
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I suggest that the 'Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture', certainly in England, is due to driving people off the land and into industrial work in the late 18th & throughout the 19th Centuries.
This is the traditional reason cited, and it certainly accounts for a lot. But it’s not the full story. Why is American food similarly “poor” when - until the later 19th century - it was fundamentally an agricultural country?
People have gone for tasty, easy, unhealthy stuff rather like potatoes and sugars rather than green vegetables?
Cheap food fills you up...
Cheap, unhealthy food I find doesn't fill me up at all. I have something unhealthy from McDonalds and an hour later I'm hungry again
Losing weight requires eating fewer calories than you need to maintain your weight, gaining weight is the opposite.
People make it sound difficult - but that is the reality. I am not saying it is easy to lose weight or eat fewer calories but the process itself is not difficult.
If millions of people try to do something and a high proportion fail is that not pretty much textbook difficult?
It may not sound difficult, but it clearly is, otherwise there would not be a problem.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Why is the RNLI issue a clear lie? I have not read the bill so I don't know, but Cyclefree's analysis seems quite clear.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
Because as others have already pointed out
The Home Office have already said these provisions do not apply to the RNLI.
The Human Rights Act would trump this legislation and would protect the RNLI too.
International Maritime Law makes rescues a legal duty that can't be made illegal. That is domestic law too.
The Bill needs to go through Committee etc were amendments can be made if necessary, with the Government already having said (see (1)) that this is not targetting the RNLI.
And more points have been made too. Its nonsense.
What the Home Office says has literally nothing to do with the interpretation of the provision by the courts. This is real o level constitutional law stuff. Your other points aren't slam dunks by a country mile, either.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Why is the RNLI issue a clear lie? I have not read the bill so I don't know, but Cyclefree's analysis seems quite clear.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
Because as others have already pointed out
The Home Office have already said these provisions do not apply to the RNLI.
The Human Rights Act would trump this legislation and would protect the RNLI too.
International Maritime Law makes rescues a legal duty that can't be made illegal. That is domestic law too.
The Bill needs to go through Committee etc were amendments can be made if necessary, with the Government already having said (see (1)) that this is not targetting the RNLI.
And more points have been made too. Its nonsense.
1) Is incorrect as I have already pointed out. The Home Office can say what they like, it has no effect as Cyclefree pointed out and as I know from bitter experience (see my posts). 2) and 3) puts you in a position of laws conflicting. It is effectively the same as 1) except the position is in doubt rather than being certain. Slightly better but you don't want to be in that fight. 4) I accept, but then I said that in my post, but this sort of thing just results in a terrible muddle, with loopholes and unintended consequences as I pointed out in my example and as others have also done.
Doesn't say much for the kind of fundamental competence which should always be required of any goverrnment.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Why is the RNLI issue a clear lie? I have not read the bill so I don't know, but Cyclefree's analysis seems quite clear.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
Because as others have already pointed out
The Home Office have already said these provisions do not apply to the RNLI.
The Human Rights Act would trump this legislation and would protect the RNLI too.
International Maritime Law makes rescues a legal duty that can't be made illegal. That is domestic law too.
The Bill needs to go through Committee etc were amendments can be made if necessary, with the Government already having said (see (1)) that this is not targetting the RNLI.
And more points have been made too. Its nonsense.
1) Is incorrect as I have already pointed out. The Home Office can say what they like, it has no effect as Cyclefree pointed out and as I know from bitter experience (see my posts). 2) and 3) puts you in a position of laws conflicting. It is effectively the same as 1) except the position is in doubt rather than being certain. Slightly better but you don't want to be in that fight. 4) I accept, but then I said that in my post, but this sort of thing just results in a terrible muddle, with loopholes and unintended consequences as I pointed out in my example and as others have also done.
Doesn't say much for the kind of fundamental competence which should always be required of any goverrnment.
Have you looked at this Government - it's always point scoring.
With regard to the 'cheap food' debate, I wondered a few years ago whether the government could run its own food bank. Buy lots of cheap, healthy food and distribute it via supermarket delivery services to people who are in supposed food poverty. If it was scaled up, the cost could be minimal, a few quid per recipient per week. It would serve both health and economic objectives.
I have often wondered about the inefficiency of food banks. Were I to ever be in a position where I needed to use my local foodbank, which is on an out of town main road, I would need to get a bus which would cost about £5 return. I would need to wait and go through some sort of counselling by an unqualified volunteer. The operation needs a business premises, which is a cost, and relies on donations of food which must be random and unpredictable.
Yet I am sure they do it far cheaper and more efficiently than any Government would. Can you imagine the Govt budget for the admin and the number of civil servants they would put on it. Has any Govt ever done anything cheaply?
Losing weight requires eating fewer calories than you need to maintain your weight, gaining weight is the opposite.
People make it sound difficult - but that is the reality. I am not saying it is easy to lose weight or eat fewer calories but the process itself is not difficult.
If millions of people try to do something and a high proportion fail is that not pretty much textbook difficult?
It may not sound difficult, but it clearly is, otherwise there would not be a problem.
The process itself is not complicated, eat fewer calories than you need. But I completely agree - and I acknowledged I believed - that actually doing the process is hard
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Why is the RNLI issue a clear lie? I have not read the bill so I don't know, but Cyclefree's analysis seems quite clear.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
Because as others have already pointed out
The Home Office have already said these provisions do not apply to the RNLI.
The Human Rights Act would trump this legislation and would protect the RNLI too.
International Maritime Law makes rescues a legal duty that can't be made illegal. That is domestic law too.
The Bill needs to go through Committee etc were amendments can be made if necessary, with the Government already having said (see (1)) that this is not targetting the RNLI.
And more points have been made too. Its nonsense.
1) Is incorrect as I have already pointed out. The Home Office can say what they like, it has no effect as Cyclefree pointed out and as I know from bitter experience (see my posts). 2) and 3) puts you in a position of laws conflicting. It is effectively the same as 1) except the position is in doubt rather than being certain. Slightly better but you don't want to be in that fight. 4) I accept, but then I said that in my post, but this sort of thing just results in a terrible muddle, with loopholes and unintended consequences as I pointed out in my example and as others have also done.
1 is not incorrect when it feeds into 2, 3 and 4 - or when people are falsely claiming that the opposite of 1 is the intention despite all evidence to the contrary.
Given there is a clear intention not to have this apply to the RNLI, universally agreed, and given that existing laws would protect the RNLI, it would not be beyond the wit of man to come up with an amendment in committee if needed.
But its worth noting the RNLI themselves aren't really objecting - others who are routinely partisan pointscoring critics of the government are doing so on their behalf.
To feed a family of four at McDonalds costs the better part of £20 nowadays.
To go to the Co-Op, or Aldi, or Tesco's and get some fresh veg and meat and prepare a fresh meal can be done considerably cheaper.
People are buying at McDonalds and others because its convenient, not because they can't afford to cook at home.
And as people have pointed out earlier
1) People are not being taught how to cook
2) People who haven't been shown how to do things are often too scared to try to do those things themselves
3) People may not enjoy cooking and would rather watch TV - it's highly possible that cooking takes an hour and results in no thanks from the rest of the family.
You can see why people may go for the easier options.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
If hyperpartisan critics of the government need to rely on clear lies and misinterpretations to criticise the government then clearly the government is doing a good job.
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The thing to look at in all these laws is would you be comfortable for this legislation to be in the toolkit of your opponents.
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
I've already said I've got more concerns over the online harms bill, as described. Though others have said the bill is not really as described, I don't know enough to comment further on that.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Why is the RNLI issue a clear lie? I have not read the bill so I don't know, but Cyclefree's analysis seems quite clear.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
Because as others have already pointed out
The Home Office have already said these provisions do not apply to the RNLI.
The Human Rights Act would trump this legislation and would protect the RNLI too.
International Maritime Law makes rescues a legal duty that can't be made illegal. That is domestic law too.
The Bill needs to go through Committee etc were amendments can be made if necessary, with the Government already having said (see (1)) that this is not targetting the RNLI.
And more points have been made too. Its nonsense.
1) Is incorrect as I have already pointed out. The Home Office can say what they like, it has no effect as Cyclefree pointed out and as I know from bitter experience (see my posts). 2) and 3) puts you in a position of laws conflicting. It is effectively the same as 1) except the position is in doubt rather than being certain. Slightly better but you don't want to be in that fight. 4) I accept, but then I said that in my post, but this sort of thing just results in a terrible muddle, with loopholes and unintended consequences as I pointed out in my example and as others have also done.
Doesn't say much for the kind of fundamental competence which should always be required of any goverrnment.
Competence and Government (of any sort) rarely go together in my view.
Comments
I ask because I have a letter from James Cleverly from a couple of months ago which says, inter alia, "our funding for Yemen may increase, and indeed we have exceeded our annual pledge in previous years."
I'm not remotely qualified to tell which, except to note that the UK has some additional inflationary factors that won't affect the Eurozone.
And the people who are least sympathetic to 'the poor cannot afford to eat' blather are the low paid who do feed their families properly.
A couple of questions:
The first issue needs further lawyerly analysis. It is inconceivable that the RNLI or Coastguard, or any ship, obeying the law of the sea is going to be successfully prosecuted. Will not their obvious defence already be written into maritime law?
Is the second matter an attempt to deal with then problem of people who are not in truth asylum seekers building a late and false case? I don't know the answer, but the Court of Appeal is frequently reluctant to consider late fresh evidence without very strong reason.
In the third matter, we are at early stages of dealing with a novel problem. For myself I believe that the internet should be seen as being as much a place of publishing as a bookshop, newspaper or book publisher. Currently we allow every Hitler, every holocaust denier, every anti Semite to be their own consequence free, anonymous if desired, international publisher to every person on the planet. This cannot be sustained. So criticism of the government proposals need, as in every case, to be backed by a better solution.
So why do we get such legislation. The reason is not, I think, a desire to prosecute the RNLI. Or censor the Guardian.
It comes from reaction to other actions.
For example, in the world of immigration law, it has long been a practise to time the production of evidence in a case to extend the process.
Michael Howard, back in the day, raised a great deal of ire, when he changed procedures at the Home Office. At the time, the practise was, that when an asylum seeker claimed they would be persecuted in a particular country, for a particular reason, that a report could be requested specifically for this case.
So, late in the process, a request would be raised. Say, that France was a failed state and the asylum seeker would face a terrible fate there.
The report writing was slow and the process clogged with repeated requests.
What Michael Howard did was to rule that reports could be reused for a certain time period (a year at least, I think) and that certain countries (such as EU members) were ruled to not to be a hazard to various groups.
The question is how to stop ill thought out legal responses to ill thought out legal hacks - a cycle that doesn't actually help anyone.
Except possibly the lawyers who draft the laws. And the lawyers looking for the loopholes....
We are trying to get a 10 min bill passed that will allow the parliamentary ombudsman to review a case which currently they can't do because of an oversight in the original legislation. So for those here who say 'that won't happen'; it does.
Obesity is fast becoming “a disease of England’s poorest people”, putting them at higher risk of dying from the biggest killer diseases, a new report from the King’s Fund warns.
There is a stark and widening gap between the number of people from deprived families who are dangerously overweight and those from better-off backgrounds, and the difference is particularly pronounced among women, the thinktank says.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/04/women-living-in-poverty-hit-worst-by-obesity-crisis-report-finds
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/29/poorer-areas-of-england-have-more-fast-food-shops-figures-show
Campaigners are demanding taxes on junk food after official figures showed that primary school children from poorer areas are twice as likely as those from wealthier ones to be obese.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/03/childhood-obesity-poor-wealthy-areas-junk-food
Childhood obesity is set to increase so sharply among boys from poorer homes in England that three in five of them will be dangerously overweight by 2020, research shows.
But the number of well-off boys who are overweight or obese is expected to fall to one in six in that time, underlining that obesity’s already stark class divide will widen even further.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/11/obesity-soar-boys-girls-poorer-homes-deprived-backgrounds-overweight-2020
They've got no legitimate criticisms so make transparently fake ones instead. Then wonder why 12 points behind in the polls.
The hapless numpty they had on Newsnight last night to polish this particular turd said that the cuts would only be for the ‘bad’ aid (dictators’ gold plated toilets, Indian space programme etc) while the ‘good’ aid may even go up, so there is that.
https://twitter.com/rogerquimbly/status/1415221988474466304?s=21
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/section/25A
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Go out it in the morning and take a look at the people out jogging. Even in the poor parts of London, it's the well off people passing through.
The middle classes and above spend a fortune on keeping slim. Being over weight is considered a bit... chavy...
So, what would a Corbyn government potentially have done with the online safety bill and what could that mean for freedom of speech among right wingers? What might UKIP do with the 'RNLI bill'?
Relying on the good sense of governments and prosecutors is to rely on election of governments with good sense and prosecutors that remain independent.
We've seen with some of the abuses of terror legislation how things, once law, can be misused and creep into areas that the original drafters of the bills would never have supported.
And what would it do for the RNLI to (say) add such a clause? How would Tory Britain react?
The problem of course is what you then do with the people who do arrive here. Can't deport them to France, in many cases can't deport them home as they'll get murdered.
What we should do is get back to the values this country supposedly believes in - basic human decency and compassion. yes of course you can claim asylum here and if its genuine then you will be welcome. If it is false then we will deport you.
Instead its fear of the forrin, Schrodingers migrants here to take both our jobs and sponge on "benefits". Would be better if they all drowned say the people responding to the Nigel's videos. We have been groomed to be a national of nasty bastards.
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
My personal thought is to allow the evidence. And fine the *lawyer* heavily, for wasting the court/immigration services time.
I got my exercise bike for about £60 or so. Running only requires a top, shorts, and trainers.
Boris and co are going for those voters to the annoyance (and lose) of former middle of the road (so conservative) Convervative voters.
The RNLI issue is a clear lie though.
The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be debating the real principle behind the law and instead debating an already dismissed wilful misinterpretation.
The question to answer is Should people trafficking be a criminal offence, even if "for profit" can not be proven?
Be careful out there!
Also since 1987 no school has taught people to cook - which is a problem for a lot of people who didn't have parents with the time or inclination to do so.
It was certainly happy enough to see them prosecuted.
Does it fuck. Mrs DA is from India and we had a multi year ordeal to get her residency rights.
If you haven't got money and/or are prepared to lawyer up your chances are slim.
Once you've defined that you can then start to see how you make it a criminal offence.
Which was why the "for profit" clause was used for so long...
There are quite a few council run gyms, swimming pools etc. The ones near me are free to the un-employed and extremely cheap for students.
This isn't about "poor people" per se. There is an extensive fitness culture in *parts* of the most deprived areas - the problem is that there cultural sub-areas where fitness isn't a priority.
One thing is a the time/tiredness point, which is often raised. As a counter point, I would raise the example of people working in underpinning in construction. That is, manually digging basements. Quite a number of them finish their shifts - then go to the gym! Yes, you'd think....
*Well, fashion derived from sports equipment
Exercise doesn’t really keep people slim, except at the margins.
The real issue is food, and middle class people - generally! - grow up with a healthier food culture.
The Anglo cultures generally have a poorer food culture and hence a higher tendency toward obesity.
And protein is also much more expensive than carbohydrate, and the latter is more filling - so the poorest have an economic and a cultural disposition to an obesogenic diet.
If we want to crack this nut, I believe it comes down to education, education, education.
I take your point that when debated this may be cleared up, BUT I have already given an example of something I am involved in which confirms Cyclefree's point - It matters not a jot what the minister says, it is what is in the Act that counts as I know to the cost of 3000+ people I am fighting for in a similar unrelated situation.
Go to Tescos and see just how cheap vegetables are. For the £3 it costs to get a happy meal you can get a weeks worth of good vegetables for two kids no problem.
In 1987 there were probably one or two instruction cooking shows a week, there are hundreds now on Freeview
My daughter learned to cook* at her primary school, a comprehensive. Mandatory lessons - for both boy and girls. As part of "life skills' - included button sewing etc.
*Some basics really.
On the second point, I don't think that banning harmful online content is a particularly good objective. It is thoroughly illiberal. If we are going down this road the threshold should be much more tightly drawn, ie inciting some sort of defined unlawful behaviour. The current law, as I understand it from these exchanges, merely requires proof of a risk of significant psychological harm to one person. Anyone can plead harm for almost anything. We are going down a pathetic rabbit hole giving too much oxygen to self declared victims; the exact opposite of the supposed goals of the government. The future is not looking good.
If you haven't cooked before, and aren't adventurous, then trying to cook in the first place is a serious hurdle.
Being self starting (I rather hate that phrase but...) is not as common as you might think. To many people "haven't done that before" is a massive block.
By contrast, chucking a cheap frozen meal in the microwave is quick, simple, requires no skills etc. Same for takeaways.
Compare the price of a tin of beans or tomatoes with that of a bag of chips.
Or a bag of carrots to a pack of crisps.
Your point about cooking skills, or lack of, is a good one.
When I was a stagiare semi pro we used to do a 100-150km training ride in the morning. Drink 2 litres of sparkling water to bloat the stomach and take a shitload of sleeping pills to knock us out until the next day so we wouldn't eat. That works.
People make it sound difficult - but that is the reality. I am not saying it is easy to lose weight or eat fewer calories but the process itself is not difficult.
- The Home Office have already said these provisions do not apply to the RNLI.
- The Human Rights Act would trump this legislation and would protect the RNLI too.
- International Maritime Law makes rescues a legal duty that can't be made illegal. That is domestic law too.
- The Bill needs to go through Committee etc were amendments can be made if necessary, with the Government already having said (see (1)) that this is not targetting the RNLI.
And more points have been made too. Its nonsense.One part that seems forgotten is the idea of making dishes at home, pre-prepared - in the fridge, or frozen.
When I lived around Tower Hill, it was interesting to observe that the people most likely to cook at home were actually the very poorest, generally 1st generation immigrants.
- grew up poor
- learned nothing practical from “home ec”
- am obese, according to my BMI
Despite all the cooking shows, and the cheapness indeed of vegetables etc, I find the problem is simply that Anglo cultures don’t really look at cooking as a “craft” to be absorbed, but rather as a kind of “trick” to be memorised.
People talk about their “amazing” spag bol, but not the fact that almost everything starts with some kind of soffrito.
Bring cookery back into schools and start with the simple skill of chopping. Then move on to answer the question, how many ways can you prepare a carrot? What is the best?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/57818938
Hoping that doesn't affect him, but obviously it might have left him a bit perturbed.
The problem is not that people can't afford food, as a nation food has never cost less as a proportion of people's expenditures.
The problem is people don't want to cook food - and its too easy and reasonably cheap to go for unhealthy alternatives.
Fat chance of the Tories doing it, they prefer to take stuff away from poor people. What say Labour?
I have often wondered about the inefficiency of food banks. Were I to ever be in a position where I needed to use my local foodbank, which is on an out of town main road, I would need to get a bus which would cost about £5 return. I would need to wait and go through some sort of counselling by an unqualified volunteer. The operation needs a business premises, which is a cost, and relies on donations of food which must be random and unpredictable.
But cooking is expensive to teach and takes time from subjects that contribute to school performance tables. And quite a lot of the new wave free schools (like Michaela in Brent) simply don't touch those sort of subjects at all.
I warned a few weeks ago about how we're going in the wrong direction, I just have a bad a feeling like I had before. And many here ridiculed me when I called for previous lockdowns but if you'd followed my timing we'd have been in a much better position.
2) and 3) puts you in a position of laws conflicting. It is effectively the same as 1) except the position is in doubt rather than being certain. Slightly better but you don't want to be in that fight.
4) I accept, but then I said that in my post, but this sort of thing just results in a terrible muddle, with loopholes and unintended consequences as I pointed out in my example and as others have also done.
Con 41.9%
Lab 33.2%
LD 9.0%
Grn 5.6%
SNP 4.3%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Changes from GE2019:
Con -2.8%
Lab +0.3%
LD -2.8%
Grn +2.8%
SNP +0.3%
Swing, Con to Lab: 1.5%
And round here the food bank has multiple locations during the week to ensure most people have walkable options.
But that doesn’t account for Japan.
Or Normandy.
I’m getting hungry now.
To go to the Co-Op, or Aldi, or Tesco's and get some fresh veg and meat and prepare a fresh meal can be done considerably cheaper.
People are buying at McDonalds and others because its convenient, not because they can't afford to cook at home.
It may not sound difficult, but it clearly is, otherwise there would not be a problem.
Great. I’ll just bung them in the microwave for 2 mins on high.
Given there is a clear intention not to have this apply to the RNLI, universally agreed, and given that existing laws would protect the RNLI, it would not be beyond the wit of man to come up with an amendment in committee if needed.
But its worth noting the RNLI themselves aren't really objecting - others who are routinely partisan pointscoring critics of the government are doing so on their behalf.
1) People are not being taught how to cook
2) People who haven't been shown how to do things are often too scared to try to do those things themselves
3) People may not enjoy cooking and would rather watch TV - it's highly possible that cooking takes an hour and results in no thanks from the rest of the family.
You can see why people may go for the easier options.