FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

J K Rowling is trending on twitter....i presume its the now monthly pile on due to her saying something vaguely controversial at some point some where.

No

An awful lot of people QTing this apology determined to find out if there is indeed safety in numbers. Well, chaps, there might be for most of you. But the weak ones at the back of the flock are going to be picked off one by one...
https://twitter.com/no1guncle/status/1435952913638215684

It has started the pile on ....latest tweet . .

"On the 10th September 2021 I will call JK Rowling a fucking transphobic howler monkey with the talent of a syphilitic horse and the decency of Savile on a hospital ward. I reserve any apology in advance of this statement."

https://twitter.com/Easy_As_He_Him/status/1436057973328171009?s=19

Absolutely disgraceful the abuse she gets on social media.

Just wonder why you're adding to it by spreading it on here then?

Biden administration announces new rule which requires all companies with at least 100 employees to ensure their workforce is either fully vaccinated or gets tested once a week https://t.co/uHL2YkjgMV

Northern_Al said:

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

I agree. But it's important to put the horse before the cart. You don't start by saying "We want a wealth tax". You start by saying "We want to reduce the tax burden on people at work." How? Then you talk about wealth taxes. The mistake we often make on the left is to talk about a wealth tax as virtuous in itself, which reinforces the idea that Labour loves to tax you.

I agree, but think Labour can afford to be a bit braver as we enter post-Covid times. Back in the 1980s. the "greed is good" mantra was largely unchallenged.

But now, the level of corporate, and individual, greed is so vast that I think challenging it could be popular. The grotesque differences in income between the average and the top 1-5% are stupendously large, with people (including PL footballers) earning salaries that are just ridiculous. Similarly, the greed that some of the most wealthy corporations exhibit - paying their workers a pittance while directors and shareholders are lining their pockets - should be challenged. Of course we'll get the "you'll just drive investment abroad" mantra. But if Britain really wants to be great for business, Labour should he arguing for less grotesque differentials of income and wealth. For a more equitable and happy form of capitalism, if you like.

I think I completely agree - I find it hard to see how someone can think all that and also think FOM was a good thing though. It was a magnificent enabler of the basic principle you are criticising

Well, we'll have to disagree on that - but pleased you agree with the general argument. From my point of view, FOM could have been managed much better, and we didn't use the constraints available to us to limit the numbers. But more importantly, my point about greed extends to FOM as well: it's greed that led employers to use FOM to undercut wages for workers from Europe, nothing else. That culture of greed and exploitation is the problem, not the workers from Eastern Europe. If those jobs had been well paid, they'd have been filled within this country regardless of FOM, and the numbers coming here would have been much smaller. All about corporate profit, not FOM.

What? So if the wage differential had been greater, the flows would have been less? That's not how it normally works.

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

And that's as good as a tax decrease.

You mean, round down ...

I think he was using mathematical roundings as practised by Mr Hyufd.

It's hard, though. Rounding up, you go up; rounding down, you go down. Counterintuitive.

Not to mention rounding to the nearest integer. Divisive. Or perhaps not.

Reminds me of how 2+2 = 5.

2.49 + 2.49 = 5 (well 4.98, but that's rounded up to 5.)

But rounded down that's 2+2 = 5.

You can equally use

2.26 + 2.25 = 4.51 which rounds up to 5.

Yes it's not that different but I just spent 2 months training an AI system to ignore the impact of weird rounding on payslips

One of my most stressful days at work was ironically on holiday.

Get a phone call from saying 'We've got a problem, there's x millions missing from one account.'

So I'm working out how to get back into the country wondering if I've got my own Nick Leeson whilst getting glares from the other half.

About 40 minutes later 'Never mind, someone added comma separators when doing the reconciliation and it threw everything out. all sorted.'

Make sure your AI isn't befuddled by comma separators.

Never mind AI, this human's meagre intelligence is thrown when our continental chums use commas to mean decimal points and vice versa.

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

No political upside in police failings. It causes a stink, people get angry, then they worry its wrong to get too angry at the police, someone says more money will fix everything, then it goes quiet again until next time.

And that's why useless incompetents like Cressida Dick get their contracts renewed.

Law and order is the most important and basic function of the state. If it can't or won't get that right, why trust it with anything else?

If you read the article, it is not money which is the issue but poor leadership and a defensive culture which considers its own reputation as the most important thing. In that respect, little has changed since the 1970's - as this documentary on iPlayer makes clear: Bent Coppers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v4h6.

Tonight on BBC1 Wales we have the Lynette White scandal. When the bent coppers were eventually busted, their chums at Butetown nick lost all the evidence against them so they walked. On I player shortly.

My biggest shock over Dick, is how, as Operational Commander on the day when DeMenezes was blown away, she became Chief Constable rather than being escorted out of New Scotland Yard with just a cardboard box of personal items.

The worst bit of Welsh policing is all the times they missed to investigate Ian Watkins.

Apparently to my friend in Wales apparently no one really wants to discuss it given what he did.

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

And that's as good as a tax decrease.

You mean, round down ...

I think he was using mathematical roundings as practised by Mr Hyufd.

It's hard, though. Rounding up, you go up; rounding down, you go down. Counterintuitive.

Not to mention rounding to the nearest integer. Divisive. Or perhaps not.

Reminds me of how 2+2 = 5.

2.49 + 2.49 = 5 (well 4.98, but that's rounded up to 5.)

But rounded down that's 2+2 = 5.

You can equally use

2.26 + 2.25 = 4.51 which rounds up to 5.

Yes it's not that different but I just spent 2 months training an AI system to ignore the impact of weird rounding on payslips

One of my most stressful days at work was ironically on holiday.

Get a phone call from saying 'We've got a problem, there's x millions missing from one account.'

So I'm working out how to get back into the country wondering if I've got my own Nick Leeson whilst getting glares from the other half.

About 40 minutes later 'Never mind, someone added comma separators when doing the reconciliation and it threw everything out. all sorted.'

Make sure your AI isn't befuddled by comma separators.

CSV files have always been a bad idea. It's a shame that no one ever invented an ASCII character whose sole purpose was to act as a delimiter. That's would have avoided millions of IT headaches over the years.

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

No political upside in police failings. It causes a stink, people get angry, then they worry its wrong to get too angry at the police, someone says more money will fix everything, then it goes quiet again until next time.

And that's why useless incompetents like Cressida Dick get their contracts renewed.

Law and order is the most important and basic function of the state. If it can't or won't get that right, why trust it with anything else?

If you read the article, it is not money which is the issue but poor leadership and a defensive culture which considers its own reputation as the most important thing. In that respect, little has changed since the 1970's - as this documentary on iPlayer makes clear: Bent Coppers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v4h6.

Tonight on BBC1 Wales we have the Lynette White scandal. When the bent coppers were eventually busted, their chums at Butetown nick lost all the evidence against them so they walked. On I player shortly.

My biggest shock over Dick, is how, as Operational Commander on the day when DeMenezes was blown away, she became Chief Constable rather than being escorted out of New Scotland Yard with just a cardboard box of personal items.

At the risk of being called sexist, is part of it because she is female? Would a man have got the same favour?

Culture war wars – the Churchill years

Part 1. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust changes its name to the Churchill Fellowship
Part 2. Churchill biographer Boris condemns it as "absurd, misguided and wrong"
Part 3. Churchill grandson Nicholas Soames says the family supports the CF

In a separate statement online, The Churchill Fellowship said: “Last month we simplified our name. We did so not because we are disowning Sir Winston, but because over many years we have found that, in a simple practical sense, the name was confusing to people and did not explain what we do.”

It is understood the charity, under its previous name, found itself having to field inquiries from members of the public who assumed it was a historical archive, or a heritage organisation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/09/boris-johnson-criticises-charitys-airbrushing-winston-churchill/ (£££)

Meanwhile in Canada. The average of the last 11 polls taken over the past 3 days.
Con 33.5% (-0.9)
Lib 31.6 (-1.5)
NDP 19.9 (+3.9)
BQ 5.6 ( -2.0)
GP 2.9 (-3.7)
PPC 5.6 (+4.0) Changes with last election.

Some thoughts.
1) The Liberals bleeding of votes has stopped. Behind, but not by much. A 1.9% deficit probably means most seats.
2) No great enthusiasm for the Conservatives. Down on last time.
3) The left vote is coalescing into the NDP, rather than being split. They ought to gain seats.
4) Trudeau has prospered before by late eating into the left vote. Not happening thus far.
5) Tories never had that luxury before. There was no Party to their right to squeeze. There is now. The PPC are getting wild polling scores. Ranging from 2-7.6%. If they exist to the higher end of that range, and can be squeezed, then that could be the ball game for O'Toole.

Still too close to call mind.

Cookie said:

Northern_Al said:

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

I agree. But it's important to put the horse before the cart. You don't start by saying "We want a wealth tax". You start by saying "We want to reduce the tax burden on people at work." How? Then you talk about wealth taxes. The mistake we often make on the left is to talk about a wealth tax as virtuous in itself, which reinforces the idea that Labour loves to tax you.

I agree, but think Labour can afford to be a bit braver as we enter post-Covid times. Back in the 1980s. the "greed is good" mantra was largely unchallenged.

But now, the level of corporate, and individual, greed is so vast that I think challenging it could be popular. The grotesque differences in income between the average and the top 1-5% are stupendously large, with people (including PL footballers) earning salaries that are just ridiculous. Similarly, the greed that some of the most wealthy corporations exhibit - paying their workers a pittance while directors and shareholders are lining their pockets - should be challenged. Of course we'll get the "you'll just drive investment abroad" mantra. But if Britain really wants to be great for business, Labour should he arguing for less grotesque differentials of income and wealth. For a more equitable and happy form of capitalism, if you like.

I think I completely agree - I find it hard to see how someone can think all that and also think FOM was a good thing though. It was a magnificent enabler of the basic principle you are criticising

Well, we'll have to disagree on that - but pleased you agree with the general argument. From my point of view, FOM could have been managed much better, and we didn't use the constraints available to us to limit the numbers. But more importantly, my point about greed extends to FOM as well: it's greed that led employers to use FOM to undercut wages for workers from Europe, nothing else. That culture of greed and exploitation is the problem, not the workers from Eastern Europe. If those jobs had been well paid, they'd have been filled within this country regardless of FOM, and the numbers coming here would have been much smaller. All about corporate profit, not FOM.

What? So if the wage differential had been greater, the flows would have been less? That's not how it normally works.

Yes, if wages had been much higher for fruit pickers, baristas warehouse workers, lorry drivers and so on then more of the jobs would have been filled by people already living here, because they would have been more attractive. Employers would have been less able to use the "we had to recruit from Romania - nobody here wanted the jobs".

Northern_Al said:

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

I agree. But it's important to put the horse before the cart. You don't start by saying "We want a wealth tax". You start by saying "We want to reduce the tax burden on people at work." How? Then you talk about wealth taxes. The mistake we often make on the left is to talk about a wealth tax as virtuous in itself, which reinforces the idea that Labour loves to tax you.

I agree, but think Labour can afford to be a bit braver as we enter post-Covid times. Back in the 1980s. the "greed is good" mantra was largely unchallenged.

But now, the level of corporate, and individual, greed is so vast that I think challenging it could be popular. The grotesque differences in income between the average and the top 1-5% are stupendously large, with people (including PL footballers) earning salaries that are just ridiculous. Similarly, the greed that some of the most wealthy corporations exhibit - paying their workers a pittance while directors and shareholders are lining their pockets - should be challenged. Of course we'll get the "you'll just drive investment abroad" mantra. But if Britain really wants to be great for business, Labour should he arguing for less grotesque differentials of income and wealth. For a more equitable and happy form of capitalism, if you like.

I think I completely agree - I find it hard to see how someone can think all that and also think FOM was a good thing though. It was a magnificent enabler of the basic principle you are criticising

Well, we'll have to disagree on that - but pleased you agree with the general argument. From my point of view, FOM could have been managed much better, and we didn't use the constraints available to us to limit the numbers. But more importantly, my point about greed extends to FOM as well: it's greed that led employers to use FOM to undercut wages for workers from Europe, nothing else. That culture of greed and exploitation is the problem, not the workers from Eastern Europe. If those jobs had been well paid, they'd have been filled within this country regardless of FOM, and the numbers coming here would have been much smaller. All about corporate profit, not FOM.

Yes “it's greed that led employers to use FOM to undercut wages for workers from Europe, nothing else”, and when the people it affected most complained, the state called them racist. As Lord Glasman more or less says, FOM was the greatest con trick capitalism could have invented

Northern_Al said:

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

I agree. But it's important to put the horse before the cart. You don't start by saying "We want a wealth tax". You start by saying "We want to reduce the tax burden on people at work." How? Then you talk about wealth taxes. The mistake we often make on the left is to talk about a wealth tax as virtuous in itself, which reinforces the idea that Labour loves to tax you.

I agree, but think Labour can afford to be a bit braver as we enter post-Covid times. Back in the 1980s. the "greed is good" mantra was largely unchallenged.

But now, the level of corporate, and individual, greed is so vast that I think challenging it could be popular. The grotesque differences in income between the average and the top 1-5% are stupendously large, with people (including PL footballers) earning salaries that are just ridiculous. Similarly, the greed that some of the most wealthy corporations exhibit - paying their workers a pittance while directors and shareholders are lining their pockets - should be challenged. Of course we'll get the "you'll just drive investment abroad" mantra. But if Britain really wants to be great for business, Labour should he arguing for less grotesque differentials of income and wealth. For a more equitable and happy form of capitalism, if you like.

I think I completely agree - I find it hard to see how someone can think all that and also think FOM was a good thing though. It was a magnificent enabler of the basic principle you are criticising

Well, we'll have to disagree on that - but pleased you agree with the general argument. From my point of view, FOM could have been managed much better, and we didn't use the constraints available to us to limit the numbers. But more importantly, my point about greed extends to FOM as well: it's greed that led employers to use FOM to undercut wages for workers from Europe, nothing else. That culture of greed and exploitation is the problem, not the workers from Eastern Europe. If those jobs had been well paid, they'd have been filled within this country regardless of FOM, and the numbers coming here would have been much smaller. All about corporate profit, not FOM.

But also about the choices we have made as consumers.

The UK is famous for the efficiency of its supermarkets- Aldi and Lidl are cheaper, but they run a model with smaller product ranges and basic store fittings; the customer sees where the cheap is.

Sainsbury's, Tesco's et al squeeze all the behind the scenes stuff, like the suppliers and distributors, and they're blooming good at it. We moan when prices go up (as they are now), but we never question where the cheapness is coming from. I should pay way more than I do for home delivery, but I don't.

And that comes back to house prices. If you weren't already on the ladder by, say, 2005 you're stuffed. So much of your money each month is going on rent or a mortgage that you have to squeeze every penny, including the pennies the supermarket squeezes on your behalf. Same for the public sector, except for health and pensions. There is no money at all for anything else.

The artificially high cost for buying accommodation today basically distorts anything else, including our politics. Consider this graph from the New Statesman;

https://twitter.com/Lucywwatson/status/1435006036805566468?s=19

I don't know how you solve this without badly hurting people- a bit of wage inflation won't do it.

But it needs solving.

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

I agree. But it's important to put the horse before the cart. You don't start by saying "We want a wealth tax". You start by saying "We want to reduce the tax burden on people at work." How? Then you talk about wealth taxes. The mistake we often make on the left is to talk about a wealth tax as virtuous in itself, which reinforces the idea that Labour loves to tax you.

I agree, but think Labour can afford to be a bit braver as we enter post-Covid times. Back in the 1980s. the "greed is good" mantra was largely unchallenged.

But now, the level of corporate, and individual, greed is so vast that I think challenging it could be popular. The grotesque differences in income between the average and the top 1-5% are stupendously large, with people (including PL footballers) earning salaries that are just ridiculous. Similarly, the greed that some of the most wealthy corporations exhibit - paying their workers a pittance while directors and shareholders are lining their pockets - should be challenged. Of course we'll get the "you'll just drive investment abroad" mantra. But if Britain really wants to be great for business, Labour should he arguing for less grotesque differentials of income and wealth. For a more equitable and happy form of capitalism, if you like.

I think I completely agree - I find it hard to see how someone can think all that and also think FOM was a good thing though. It was a magnificent enabler of the basic principle you are criticising

Well, we'll have to disagree on that - but pleased you agree with the general argument. From my point of view, FOM could have been managed much better, and we didn't use the constraints available to us to limit the numbers. But more importantly, my point about greed extends to FOM as well: it's greed that led employers to use FOM to undercut wages for workers from Europe, nothing else. That culture of greed and exploitation is the problem, not the workers from Eastern Europe. If those jobs had been well paid, they'd have been filled within this country regardless of FOM, and the numbers coming here would have been much smaller. All about corporate profit, not FOM.

Yes “it's greed that led employers to use FOM to undercut wages for workers from Europe, nothing else”, and when the people it affected most complained, the state called them racist. As Lord Glasman more or less says, FOM was the greatest con trick capitalism could have invented

Not sure about racist, but you're right that it was easier, and more convenient, to blame the actual workers from Eastern Europe than to blame the exploitative employers that lured them here. Farage more often did the former than the latter, for example.

You're a Labour person at heart really, aren't you?

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

No political upside in police failings. It causes a stink, people get angry, then they worry its wrong to get too angry at the police, someone says more money will fix everything, then it goes quiet again until next time.

And that's why useless incompetents like Cressida Dick get their contracts renewed.

Law and order is the most important and basic function of the state. If it can't or won't get that right, why trust it with anything else?

If you read the article, it is not money which is the issue but poor leadership and a defensive culture which considers its own reputation as the most important thing. In that respect, little has changed since the 1970's - as this documentary on iPlayer makes clear: Bent Coppers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v4h6.

Tonight on BBC1 Wales we have the Lynette White scandal. When the bent coppers were eventually busted, their chums at Butetown nick lost all the evidence against them so they walked. On I player shortly.

My biggest shock over Dick, is how, as Operational Commander on the day when DeMenezes was blown away, she became Chief Constable rather than being escorted out of New Scotland Yard with just a cardboard box of personal items.

At the risk of being called sexist, is part of it because she is female? Would a man have got the same favour?

Who knows? But I doubt it

If you wanted to go into full anti-wokery mode you could question her LGBT credentials too.

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

And that's as good as a tax decrease.

You mean, round down ...

I think he was using mathematical roundings as practised by Mr Hyufd.

It's hard, though. Rounding up, you go up; rounding down, you go down. Counterintuitive.

Not to mention rounding to the nearest integer. Divisive. Or perhaps not.

Reminds me of how 2+2 = 5.

2.49 + 2.49 = 5 (well 4.98, but that's rounded up to 5.)

But rounded down that's 2+2 = 5.

You can equally use

2.26 + 2.25 = 4.51 which rounds up to 5.

Yes it's not that different but I just spent 2 months training an AI system to ignore the impact of weird rounding on payslips

One of my most stressful days at work was ironically on holiday.

Get a phone call from saying 'We've got a problem, there's x millions missing from one account.'

So I'm working out how to get back into the country wondering if I've got my own Nick Leeson whilst getting glares from the other half.

About 40 minutes later 'Never mind, someone added comma separators when doing the reconciliation and it threw everything out. all sorted.'

Make sure your AI isn't befuddled by comma separators.

I've never been befuddled by comma separators.

Al.

Mexicanpete said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

No political upside in police failings. It causes a stink, people get angry, then they worry its wrong to get too angry at the police, someone says more money will fix everything, then it goes quiet again until next time.

And that's why useless incompetents like Cressida Dick get their contracts renewed.

Law and order is the most important and basic function of the state. If it can't or won't get that right, why trust it with anything else?

If you read the article, it is not money which is the issue but poor leadership and a defensive culture which considers its own reputation as the most important thing. In that respect, little has changed since the 1970's - as this documentary on iPlayer makes clear: Bent Coppers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v4h6.

Tonight on BBC1 Wales we have the Lynette White scandal. When the bent coppers were eventually busted, their chums at Butetown nick lost all the evidence against them so they walked. On I player shortly.

My biggest shock over Dick, is how, as Operational Commander on the day when DeMenezes was blown away, she became Chief Constable rather than being escorted out of New Scotland Yard with just a cardboard box of personal items.

The worst bit of Welsh policing is all the times they missed to investigate Ian Watkins.

Apparently to my friend in Wales apparently no one really wants to discuss it given what he did.

True enough. For a moment I mistakenly thought "Steps", huh? Then I remembered the case. Simply vile. I don't know much about the police investigation. It is very much a case of brushing the scandal under the carpet.

The Lynette White case was about detectives framing 5 black guys when all the evidence pointed to one white guy. When the murderer was eventually caught on DNA evidence, the (allegedly corrupt) detectives were to be put on trial. The evidence was then lost, the case collapsed, and then the evidence was found.

The police are utter cretins.

That profession really does attract the worst of society.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

No political upside in police failings. It causes a stink, people get angry, then they worry its wrong to get too angry at the police, someone says more money will fix everything, then it goes quiet again until next time.

And that's why useless incompetents like Cressida Dick get their contracts renewed.

Law and order is the most important and basic function of the state. If it can't or won't get that right, why trust it with anything else?

If you read the article, it is not money which is the issue but poor leadership and a defensive culture which considers its own reputation as the most important thing. In that respect, little has changed since the 1970's - as this documentary on iPlayer makes clear: Bent Coppers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v4h6.

Tonight on BBC1 Wales we have the Lynette White scandal. When the bent coppers were eventually busted, their chums at Butetown nick lost all the evidence against them so they walked. On I player shortly.

My biggest shock over Dick, is how, as Operational Commander on the day when DeMenezes was blown away, she became Chief Constable rather than being escorted out of New Scotland Yard with just a cardboard box of personal items.

At the risk of being called sexist, is part of it because she is female? Would a man have got the same favour?

She should have been fired for multiple acts of incompetence, nothing to do with gender

Yes but my point is why wasn’t she?

It really is incomprehensible but then so is Williamson and he is male

Ah, but the spider is apparently trans.

Stuartinromford said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Culture war wars – the Churchill years

Part 1. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust changes its name to the Churchill Fellowship
Part 2. Churchill biographer Boris condemns it as "absurd, misguided and wrong"
Part 3. Churchill grandson Nicholas Soames says the family supports the CF

In a separate statement online, The Churchill Fellowship said: “Last month we simplified our name. We did so not because we are disowning Sir Winston, but because over many years we have found that, in a simple practical sense, the name was confusing to people and did not explain what we do.”

It is understood the charity, under its previous name, found itself having to field inquiries from members of the public who assumed it was a historical archive, or a heritage organisation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/09/boris-johnson-criticises-charitys-airbrushing-winston-churchill/ (£££)

Has Bozza had a bad day needing a quick round of culture wars to get him back to his happy place?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/09/churchill-fellowship-defends-criticism-from-boris-johnson-after-website-rebrand

"The changes were overseen by the charity’s trustees headed by Jeremy Soames, another grandson of Churchill, after wide consultation with donors and fellows. It had received virtually no complaints about the rebrand until the reports in the Sun and Daily Mail this week.

It said it was untrue that it taken down several images of Sir Winston from the site. A spokesperson for the fellowship said it had only ever had the rights to use one image, and this was now back on the site. It also questioned reports that some of its “loyal volunteers” were fuming at the move, pointing out that it did not have any volunteers."

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

No political upside in police failings. It causes a stink, people get angry, then they worry its wrong to get too angry at the police, someone says more money will fix everything, then it goes quiet again until next time.

And that's why useless incompetents like Cressida Dick get their contracts renewed.

Law and order is the most important and basic function of the state. If it can't or won't get that right, why trust it with anything else?

If you read the article, it is not money which is the issue but poor leadership and a defensive culture which considers its own reputation as the most important thing. In that respect, little has changed since the 1970's - as this documentary on iPlayer makes clear: Bent Coppers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v4h6.

Tonight on BBC1 Wales we have the Lynette White scandal. When the bent coppers were eventually busted, their chums at Butetown nick lost all the evidence against them so they walked. On I player shortly.

My biggest shock over Dick, is how, as Operational Commander on the day when DeMenezes was blown away, she became Chief Constable rather than being escorted out of New Scotland Yard with just a cardboard box of personal items.

The worst bit of Welsh policing is all the times they missed to investigate Ian Watkins.

Apparently to my friend in Wales apparently no one really wants to discuss it given what he did.

There have been many dreadful examples of police corruption in S Wales yet no police man has ever been prosecuted. No wonder I have little time and respect for them.

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

And that's as good as a tax decrease.

You mean, round down ...

Round down is fine

Round up should be banned as it contains glyphosate

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

One particular poster will be very happy....

Cookie said:

Northern_Al said:

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

I agree. But it's important to put the horse before the cart. You don't start by saying "We want a wealth tax". You start by saying "We want to reduce the tax burden on people at work." How? Then you talk about wealth taxes. The mistake we often make on the left is to talk about a wealth tax as virtuous in itself, which reinforces the idea that Labour loves to tax you.

I agree, but think Labour can afford to be a bit braver as we enter post-Covid times. Back in the 1980s. the "greed is good" mantra was largely unchallenged.

But now, the level of corporate, and individual, greed is so vast that I think challenging it could be popular. The grotesque differences in income between the average and the top 1-5% are stupendously large, with people (including PL footballers) earning salaries that are just ridiculous. Similarly, the greed that some of the most wealthy corporations exhibit - paying their workers a pittance while directors and shareholders are lining their pockets - should be challenged. Of course we'll get the "you'll just drive investment abroad" mantra. But if Britain really wants to be great for business, Labour should he arguing for less grotesque differentials of income and wealth. For a more equitable and happy form of capitalism, if you like.

I think I completely agree - I find it hard to see how someone can think all that and also think FOM was a good thing though. It was a magnificent enabler of the basic principle you are criticising

Well, we'll have to disagree on that - but pleased you agree with the general argument. From my point of view, FOM could have been managed much better, and we didn't use the constraints available to us to limit the numbers. But more importantly, my point about greed extends to FOM as well: it's greed that led employers to use FOM to undercut wages for workers from Europe, nothing else. That culture of greed and exploitation is the problem, not the workers from Eastern Europe. If those jobs had been well paid, they'd have been filled within this country regardless of FOM, and the numbers coming here would have been much smaller. All about corporate profit, not FOM.

What? So if the wage differential had been greater, the flows would have been less? That's not how it normally works.

His point is (I believe) that there were a lot of unemployed Brits.

And that these Brits could have worked, but chose not to because the wages they were being offered did not make it worthwhile.

If the wages had been higher, then the Brits would have been working, and therefore the demand for non-British labour would have been lower.

There is a part of this analysis I agree with: the tax system in the UK (with its ridiculously high all in marginal rates for those on benefits) actively discouraged Brits from working.

But that's a rather different point. One solves that by mending the tax and benefits system so as to prevent it acting as a deterrent to work. (Of course, the latest NI change further discourages work, but that's another story.)

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

One particular poster will be very happy....

I don't think No 10 will be too worried but I know some people bet on it....

We will probably now get a different poll with a Tory lead of 10, just to muddy the waters.

Leon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

lol. The genius of Bojo is no more

It is fairness or lack of it that seems to have cut through

And it was evident on here

If Labour had a decent blah leader blah they’d be 36 points ahead

THE TIMES: Huge rise in protection from Covid booster jabs

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1436078622520000513?s=20

The front pages this evening feel like a proxy war over boosters. Comments about vax the world we don't need to boosters vs leak of data claiming massive rise in protection.

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

I think we're going through a 60s/70s type scenario right now, where everybody is a tax-and-spender, and everybody loves big government.

The only real difference between the Conservative and Labour parties right now seems to be that the Conservatives are seeking to somewhat shield their voters (who trend older) from the taxes required to pay for this.

My guess is that politicians will blanche at the scale of the required tax increases (or spending cuts) and will therefore choose to borrow and to print money. After all, it hasn't caused problems so far.

However... I think this will all end in tears. Under whose watch, I do not know.

With the Tories having stolen Labour's clothes there's an opportunity here for Labour to do the same. They have a golden opportunity now to speak about how high the Tories have jacked up taxes on workers.

As I said on my prior thread header the effective real tax rate for a lowly paid graduate now is 49.8% and its even higher for many other classes of people too.

Its not only regressive but its economically harmful and counterproductive. You tax that which you wish to discourage, by taxing work so heavily you discourage people from working and encourage them to engage in ways to get their income off the books.

So perhaps Labour have a golden chance here - instead of talking about tax rises, how about talking about tax cuts for working people instead. Since the Tories have abandoned the low-tax clothes, maybe Labour could steal them in turn. Cut the taxes of working people to match those of people who aren't working.

I can suggest a way for Labour to pay for it if they do this too . . . the Laffer Curve. Cutting taxes on working, will encourage more working to go ahead, to be registered on the books properly and will get the economy growing and ultimately more taxes for HMRC. Win, win.

rottenborough said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

OMG. Someone has won a bet I think?

Not surprised at all. I said immediately that bet would be won thanks to this tax.

Well done CHB.

Razedabode said:

Not surprising re. YouGov. A huge Tory mistake, which sets the tone for post pandemic election,,

Shades of Theresa May's dementia tax

Leon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

lol. The genius of Bojo is no more

Not just that- it's fed through incredibly quickly- isn't the rule of thumb about a week? And he can't reverse course, because the government needs the money. Even if they chuck the immediate Covid recovery on the credit card (which they probably should have, and would have had they not had a work experience sixth former as Chancellor), they will need the money before the next GE.

Still, we'll be fine as long as we have a PM who is calm, sanguine, unconcerned about short-term unpopularity...

... Bugger. He's going to panic and declare war on France, isn't he?

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

lol. The genius of Bojo is no more

Not just that- it's fed through incredibly quickly- isn't the rule of thumb about a week? And he can't reverse course, because the government needs the money. Even if they chuck the immediate Covid recovery on the credit card (which they probably should have, and would have had they not had a work experience sixth former as Chancellor), they will need the money before the next GE.

Still, we'll be fine as long as we have a PM who is calm, sanguine, unconcerned about short-term unpopularity...

... Bugger. He's going to panic and declare war on France, isn't he?

Seems to have fed through too quickly to me.

HYUFD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

One poll and clearly no real movement to Labour either who are only up 1%.

I would not be complacent

This forum has given a good flavour of the anger and the feeling of unfairness

This may be Boris's dementia tax moment

NEW THREAD

Leon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Leon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

lol. The genius of Bojo is no more

It is fairness or lack of it that seems to have cut through

And it was evident on here

The tax hike is theoretically justifiable, but the execution was awful. A bit like Biden quitting Vietnam

The worst of it is the creation of a whole new tax, sacred in its virtuousness, which will therefore not only grow.

If these polls persist Boris is in trouble

A big problem for the Tories, all of previous decisions could be laid squarely on Boris. They always had the escape plan of ditching him and going with somebody like Dishy Rishi.

Problem now is Rishi is the architect of not only an unpopular rise, but even worse its a whole tax, where we all know its only ever going to go up and up and up. He is the one that has decided the best course of action was to open this one way door.

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

No political upside in police failings. It causes a stink, people get angry, then they worry its wrong to get too angry at the police, someone says more money will fix everything, then it goes quiet again until next time.

And that's why useless incompetents like Cressida Dick get their contracts renewed.

Law and order is the most important and basic function of the state. If it can't or won't get that right, why trust it with anything else?

If you read the article, it is not money which is the issue but poor leadership and a defensive culture which considers its own reputation as the most important thing. In that respect, little has changed since the 1970's - as this documentary on iPlayer makes clear: Bent Coppers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v4h6.

Tonight on BBC1 Wales we have the Lynette White scandal. When the bent coppers were eventually busted, their chums at Butetown nick lost all the evidence against them so they walked. On I player shortly.

My biggest shock over Dick, is how, as Operational Commander on the day when DeMenezes was blown away, she became Chief Constable rather than being escorted out of New Scotland Yard with just a cardboard box of personal items.

On my list to watch.

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

turbotubbs said:

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

No political upside in police failings. It causes a stink, people get angry, then they worry its wrong to get too angry at the police, someone says more money will fix everything, then it goes quiet again until next time.

And that's why useless incompetents like Cressida Dick get their contracts renewed.

Law and order is the most important and basic function of the state. If it can't or won't get that right, why trust it with anything else?

If you read the article, it is not money which is the issue but poor leadership and a defensive culture which considers its own reputation as the most important thing. In that respect, little has changed since the 1970's - as this documentary on iPlayer makes clear: Bent Coppers - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v4h6.

Tonight on BBC1 Wales we have the Lynette White scandal. When the bent coppers were eventually busted, their chums at Butetown nick lost all the evidence against them so they walked. On I player shortly.

My biggest shock over Dick, is how, as Operational Commander on the day when DeMenezes was blown away, she became Chief Constable rather than being escorted out of New Scotland Yard with just a cardboard box of personal items.

At the risk of being called sexist, is part of it because she is female? Would a man have got the same favour?

She should have been fired for multiple acts of incompetence, nothing to do with gender

Yes but my point is why wasn’t she?

The clue may be in the vague "security at the Foreign Office" job she had after leaving the Met and before being appointed. Smacks of being given a sinecure with a promise of something more in return for keeping her mouth shut about certain events and people.

Look around you at other police forces or potential replacements in the Met. They are mostly as useless as she is.

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

OMG. Someone has won a bet I think?

Not surprised at all. I said immediately that bet would be won thanks to this tax.

Well done CHB.

A PB Legend!

HYUFD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

One poll and clearly no real movement to Labour either who are only up 1%.

2% behind for a governing party that has been in power for 11 years is par for the course. Better to get the difficult financial decisions out of the way now midterm to give the NHS and social care the top up it needs and balance the books and then can go for tax cuts again before the next general election

Have some humility tonight.

When you are 20 points ahead on Saturday evening again, you can crow again.

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Exclusive:

Tory support has fallen to lowest level since 2019 election in wake of National Insurance hike, Yougov poll for Times finds

Labour has taken a lead over Tories for first time since January this year

Lab: 35 (+1)
Con: 33 (-5)
Lib Dem: 10 (+2)

lol. The genius of Bojo is no more

Wholly phuck.

If a PBer had called Hartlepool as Peak Boris, surely we should worship him as a god. Is there anything above god?

Boris Johnson?