Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Here are some ways:
1) Pay more tax 2) Reduce government spending on other things 3) Save more money 4) Create more wealth
Now how many people want to do any of that ?
I don't think people are opposed to creating wealth, we just have no idea how.
You could do some of these things:
- Encourage immigration
Pretty much the reverse of what the current government is doing.
“The number of visas issued to migrants from outside of the EU reached a record in 2021 as the first year of the UK's post-Brexit rules led to a more liberal immigration system, the Times has revealed. Home Office figures show that 843,538 non-EU migrants were granted visas to live, work and study in Britain last year.
The figure is a 107,000 increase when compared to 2019.”
There are two confounding factors, though:
1) Hong Kong; and 2) Our foreign student numbers are at record levels partly because Chinese and Indian students who would otherwise have gone to Australia/NZ have come here.
But overall, the “no one will want to come to nasty brexit Britain” stuff has been shown for the nonsense it always was. As if the average Indian or Chinese 18 year old gives a toss about internal UK politics.
Brown and black immigrants don't count to Remainers. They are mainly upset we don't let in unskilled white ones.
Found this for you, @Aslan. Something to ponder as you pause between shit-posts.
Yes that image is false and appealling to people like you for a reason.
Its wrong against your claims because Brexit hasn't led to a fall in migration, its led to controlled migration and a more liberal immigration system overall (which is what was promised) which is the right thing to do and something you should be endorsing.
Its also wrong because the problem there is that many of the words for what could be termed sovereignty are synonyms that appear in big writing there whereas immigration is in bold as pretty much the only word for immigration there.
If you look at polls which measured it numerically, immigration was actually the number two reason behind sovereignty.
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Here are some ways:
1) Pay more tax 2) Reduce government spending on other things 3) Save more money 4) Create more wealth
Now how many people want to do any of that ?
I don't think people are opposed to creating wealth, we just have no idea how.
You could do some of these things:
- Encourage immigration
Pretty much the reverse of what the current government is doing.
“The number of visas issued to migrants from outside of the EU reached a record in 2021 as the first year of the UK's post-Brexit rules led to a more liberal immigration system, the Times has revealed. Home Office figures show that 843,538 non-EU migrants were granted visas to live, work and study in Britain last year.
The figure is a 107,000 increase when compared to 2019.”
There are two confounding factors, though:
1) Hong Kong; and 2) Our foreign student numbers are at record levels partly because Chinese and Indian students who would otherwise have gone to Australia/NZ have come here.
But overall, the “no one will want to come to nasty brexit Britain” stuff has been shown for the nonsense it always was. As if the average Indian or Chinese 18 year old gives a toss about internal UK politics.
Brown and black immigrants don't count to Remainers. They are mainly upset we don't let in unskilled white ones.
Never get high on your own supply
Too late for him I think. He’s literally named himself after a divine entity.
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Here are some ways:
1) Pay more tax 2) Reduce government spending on other things 3) Save more money 4) Create more wealth
Now how many people want to do any of that ?
I don't think people are opposed to creating wealth, we just have no idea how.
You could do some of these things:
- Encourage immigration
Pretty much the reverse of what the current government is doing.
“The number of visas issued to migrants from outside of the EU reached a record in 2021 as the first year of the UK's post-Brexit rules led to a more liberal immigration system, the Times has revealed. Home Office figures show that 843,538 non-EU migrants were granted visas to live, work and study in Britain last year.
The figure is a 107,000 increase when compared to 2019.”
There are two confounding factors, though:
1) Hong Kong; and 2) Our foreign student numbers are at record levels partly because Chinese and Indian students who would otherwise have gone to Australia/NZ have come here.
But overall, the “no one will want to come to nasty brexit Britain” stuff has been shown for the nonsense it always was. As if the average Indian or Chinese 18 year old gives a toss about internal UK politics.
Brown and black immigrants don't count to Remainers. They are mainly upset we don't let in unskilled white ones.
Found this for you, @Aslan. Something to ponder as you pause between shit-posts.
Yes that image is false and appealling to people like you for a reason.
Its wrong against your claims because Brexit hasn't led to a fall in migration, its led to controlled migration and a more liberal immigration system overall (which is what was promised) which is the right thing to do and something you should be endorsing.
Its also wrong because the problem there is that many of the words for what could be termed sovereignty are synonyms that appear in big writing there whereas immigration is in bold as pretty much the only word for immigration there.
If you look at polls which measured it numerically, immigration was actually the number two reason behind sovereignty.
The last Japanese in the jungle, still fighting for a broken delusion.
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Here are some ways:
1) Pay more tax 2) Reduce government spending on other things 3) Save more money 4) Create more wealth
Now how many people want to do any of that ?
I don't think people are opposed to creating wealth, we just have no idea how.
You could do some of these things:
- Encourage immigration
Pretty much the reverse of what the current government is doing.
“The number of visas issued to migrants from outside of the EU reached a record in 2021 as the first year of the UK's post-Brexit rules led to a more liberal immigration system, the Times has revealed. Home Office figures show that 843,538 non-EU migrants were granted visas to live, work and study in Britain last year.
The figure is a 107,000 increase when compared to 2019.”
There are two confounding factors, though:
1) Hong Kong; and 2) Our foreign student numbers are at record levels partly because Chinese and Indian students who would otherwise have gone to Australia/NZ have come here.
But overall, the “no one will want to come to nasty brexit Britain” stuff has been shown for the nonsense it always was. As if the average Indian or Chinese 18 year old gives a toss about internal UK politics.
Brown and black immigrants don't count to Remainers. They are mainly upset we don't let in unskilled white ones.
Found this for you, @Aslan. Something to ponder as you pause between shit-posts.
Yes that image is false and appealling to people like you for a reason.
Its wrong against your claims because Brexit hasn't led to a fall in migration, its led to controlled migration and a more liberal immigration system overall (which is what was promised) which is the right thing to do and something you should be endorsing.
Its also wrong because the problem there is that many of the words for what could be termed sovereignty are synonyms that appear in big writing there whereas immigration is in bold as pretty much the only word for immigration there.
If you look at polls which measured it numerically, immigration was actually the number two reason behind sovereignty.
The last Japanese in the jungle, still fighting for a broken delusion.
Sad.
How’s our bet going? Quite bad for you!
How's it going badly, from memory it hasn't even started yet because we postponed the start date of the bet period due to the fact we both recognised the fact Covid needs to work out of the system.
If we hadn't, last year would have been bad for you!
In 2011, 83% of murders involved a firearm, and 6.4% were the result of a stabbing. 10% of murders in 2011 were the result of an armed robbery and at least 60% were gang or gang narcotics altercations. Over 40% of victims and 60% of offenders were between the ages of 17 and 25. 90.1% of victims were male. 75.3% of victims and 70.5% of offenders were African American, 18.9% were Hispanic (20.3% of offenders), and whites were 5.6% of victims (3.5% of offenders).[71]
Murder rates in Chicago vary greatly depending on the neighborhood in question. Many of the predominantly African American neighborhoods on the South Side are impoverished, lack educational resources and noted for high levels of street gang activity.[73] The neighborhoods of Englewood on the South Side, and Austin on the West side, for example, have homicide rates that are ten times higher than other parts of the city.[74] Violence in these neighborhoods has had a detrimental impact on the academic performance of children in schools, as well as a higher financial burden for school districts in need of counselors, social workers, and psychiatrists to help children cope with the violence.[75] In 2014, Chicago Public Schools adopted the "Safe Passage Route" program to place unarmed volunteers, police officers and firefighters along designated walking routes to provide security for children en route to school.[76] From 2010 to 2014, 114 school children were murdered in Chicago.
A personal note: In the late 1960s, I taught in a slum school on the west side of Chicago. It was an elementary school, so we only had one full-time police officer on duty. (A nearby high school had four.) My experience then persuaded me that crime i our inner cities is more often a cause of poverty, than the other way around.
While all that may very well be true, the mass school shootings have been in predominantly white areas:
People will start to wonder what the point in such a large majority is when the Government doesn't do anything.
Too pissed to do anything by the look of them.
Though they are adept at copying Labour's homework.
Great line for Starmer if the Tory’s go Windfall (Dum though Boris government is, I still don’t believe they are dum enough to play into Labours hand)
“Thank goodness I’ve got your 80 seat majority to get my policies through,”
Let’s see if Starmer’s spin doctors read PB and use this one.
It won't be Windfall Tax Special Economic Operation.
You jest, but You are right. They won’t call it a windfall tax, because what they have planned is not a windfall tax they will say - if the investment comes in, the tax won’t be paid, if the investment falls short (I guess of a arbitrary government assessment) the reminder is paid in windfall tax on a sort of graded scale. Not Special Economic Operation, I suspect “Investment stimulus package or scheme.”
Windfall tax as Gardenwalker flagged up won’t bring in much, even if you get it all. The Times say it will partly find the party box of measures to help the frustrated voters. But the way they are setting up Not Windfall Tax - it’s an Investment Stimulus Scheme, is, if we wind forward, unlikely to bring much actual income in!
Incredible. Just as I think they couldn’t do anything more stupid than gift Starmer a huge win on Windfall Tax, they are going to gift Starmer the huge win, and not even get the benefit of much of the windfall tax money!
Tell me i’m wrong. I’m not am I?
To let this government limp on like this for two years is inhumane . It should be taken to a vets and put out of its suffering.
MoonRabbit - There is enough blame to go around, but the largest share, in most instances, should be given to a man who fathers and then abandons a child.
Two stories for you: First, in my youth, this was often said to happened to a friend of theirs, or even to themselves. A boy arrives for a first date, and is questioned by the girl's father, while she is finishing getting ready. (That would have been common at the time.) To impress the boy, the father just happened to be cleaning a gun when the boy came in.
Second: A friend of mine taught at a school in Chicago for pregnant elementary school girls. I once asked her who the father was in most of the cases. She told me that it was usually the girl's mother's boyfriend.
A windfall tax is a great idea because the idea that energy is a free market is bullshit anyway. These guys live by regulatory and political arbitrage.
It won’t raise much but every little helps. The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts.
How do E&P companies, that risk capital in the hope of finding new sources of oil and gas, live by "regulatory and political arbitrage"?
The odd windfall tax is very much at the gentle end of regulatory and political risk. They live and breath this stuff.
So, that would be "You are correct, Robert, that those companies are genuine risk takers who do not live by regulatory and political arbitrage"?
MoonRabbit - There is enough blame to go around, but the largest share, in most instances, should be given to a man who fathers and then abandons a child.
Two stories for you: First, in my youth, this was often said to happened to a friend of theirs, or even to themselves. A boy arrives for a first date, and is questioned by the girl's father, while she is finishing getting ready. (That would have been common at the time.) To impress the boy, the father just happened to be cleaning a gun when the boy came in.
Second: A friend of mine taught at a school in Chicago for pregnant elementary school girls. I once asked her who the father was in most of the cases. She told me that it was usually the girl's mother's boyfriend.
Now we have identified the cause of the problem, what is the solution?
Here are some numbers from Chicago: In 2011, 83% of murders involved a firearm, and 6.4% were the result of a stabbing. 10% of murders in 2011 were the result of an armed robbery and at least 60% were gang or gang narcotics altercations. Over 40% of victims and 60% of offenders were between the ages of 17 and 25. 90.1% of victims were male. 75.3% of victims and 70.5% of offenders were African American, 18.9% were Hispanic (20.3% of offenders), and whites were 5.6% of victims (3.5% of offenders).[71]
Murder rates in Chicago vary greatly depending on the neighborhood in question. Many of the predominantly African American neighborhoods on the South Side are impoverished, lack educational resources and noted for high levels of street gang activity.[73] The neighborhoods of Englewood on the South Side, and Austin on the West side, for example, have homicide rates that are ten times higher than other parts of the city.[74] Violence in these neighborhoods has had a detrimental impact on the academic performance of children in schools, as well as a higher financial burden for school districts in need of counselors, social workers, and psychiatrists to help children cope with the violence.[75] In 2014, Chicago Public Schools adopted the "Safe Passage Route" program to place unarmed volunteers, police officers and firefighters along designated walking routes to provide security for children en route to school.[76] From 2010 to 2014, 114 school children were murdered in Chicago. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
A personal note: In the late 1960s, I taught in a slum school on the west side of Chicago. It was an elementary school, so we only had one full-time police officer on duty. (A nearby high school had four.) My experience then persuaded me that crime i our inner cities is more often a cause of poverty, than the other way around.
While all that may very well be true, the mass school shootings have been in predominantly white areas:
Today's was in a city that is only 0.3% African American, albeit I don't know if Jim thinks of African Americans and Hispanics as the same, in simply not being white.
I'm curious given Jim thinks that fatherless African American children are most likely to grow up into being criminals, whether he thinks that unmarried African American [and other] women carrying unwanted foetuses should be denied legal methods to dispose of those foetuses in a way that is demonstrated to prevent crime while respecting women's freedom . . . or if they should be compelled to have a child they do not want, who is then at high risk of providing crime he does not want?
MoonRabbit - There is enough blame to go around, but the largest share, in most instances, should be given to a man who fathers and then abandons a child.
Two stories for you: First, in my youth, this was often said to happened to a friend of theirs, or even to themselves. A boy arrives for a first date, and is questioned by the girl's father, while she is finishing getting ready. (That would have been common at the time.) To impress the boy, the father just happened to be cleaning a gun when the boy came in.
Second: A friend of mine taught at a school in Chicago for pregnant elementary school girls. I once asked her who the father was in most of the cases. She told me that it was usually the girl's mother's boyfriend.
"pregnant elementary school girls"
Ummm: elementary school runs through to just turned eleven. I mean, it's possible, because some of the girls will have had their first period before they head off to middle school... But a whole school for pregnant elementary school kids seems...
In 2011, 83% of murders involved a firearm, and 6.4% were the result of a stabbing. 10% of murders in 2011 were the result of an armed robbery and at least 60% were gang or gang narcotics altercations. Over 40% of victims and 60% of offenders were between the ages of 17 and 25. 90.1% of victims were male. 75.3% of victims and 70.5% of offenders were African American, 18.9% were Hispanic (20.3% of offenders), and whites were 5.6% of victims (3.5% of offenders).[71]
Murder rates in Chicago vary greatly depending on the neighborhood in question. Many of the predominantly African American neighborhoods on the South Side are impoverished, lack educational resources and noted for high levels of street gang activity.[73] The neighborhoods of Englewood on the South Side, and Austin on the West side, for example, have homicide rates that are ten times higher than other parts of the city.[74] Violence in these neighborhoods has had a detrimental impact on the academic performance of children in schools, as well as a higher financial burden for school districts in need of counselors, social workers, and psychiatrists to help children cope with the violence.[75] In 2014, Chicago Public Schools adopted the "Safe Passage Route" program to place unarmed volunteers, police officers and firefighters along designated walking routes to provide security for children en route to school.[76] From 2010 to 2014, 114 school children were murdered in Chicago.
A personal note: In the late 1960s, I taught in a slum school on the west side of Chicago. It was an elementary school, so we only had one full-time police officer on duty. (A nearby high school had four.) My experience then persuaded me that crime i our inner cities is more often a cause of poverty, than the other way around.
The two are entwined in a vicious cycle.
The other big stimulus to violent crime is disrespect. This article coversit:
I suspect that you are probably are correct that not many the victims of Epstein nor northern grooming gangs had much contact with their fathers. I wouldn't get into victim blaming though as this was not their fault.
Worth noting too that many of the abusers were married family men. Marriage and family life are no panacea for crime, indeed, I suspect that these abusers were not very nice to their own families either.
rcs1000 - You may have missed what I said in an earlier comment: "Mass shooters do seem to be more likely to be white, even allowing for the differences in the sizes of the groups". (That was at 3:59 PM, Western Daylight Time. I'm not sure where you are posting from so I don't know what time that would be, for you.)
MoonRabbit - There is enough blame to go around, but the largest share, in most instances, should be given to a man who fathers and then abandons a child.
Two stories for you: First, in my youth, this was often said to happened to a friend of theirs, or even to themselves. A boy arrives for a first date, and is questioned by the girl's father, while she is finishing getting ready. (That would have been common at the time.) To impress the boy, the father just happened to be cleaning a gun when the boy came in.
Second: A friend of mine taught at a school in Chicago for pregnant elementary school girls. I once asked her who the father was in most of the cases. She told me that it was usually the girl's mother's boyfriend.
Now we have identified the cause of the problem, what is the solution?
Abortion.
If a pregnant teenage woman, or in the extraordinarily unlikely event of elementary school pregnancies, pregnant pre-teens, does not want to have a child out of wedlock where there would be no father etc then a legal solution to ensure that they don't have a child works nicely for them and for society.
Some estimates show that legalised abortion leads to a 45% fall in crime, since unwanted would-be babies are the would-be criminals of the future.
Turns out unsurprisingly that wanted children are more likely to have households that want them and parents who look after and provide good role models for them.
It's Georgia primary day in the US, and it's not going well for Mr Trump.
He backed David Purdue to take on - and defeat - incumbent Governor Kemp (who had refused to overturn the election for him). Kemp is currently leading 3-1 in the Republican Primary.
Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, who earned equal enmity for the same reasons seems is leading election denier 49-36. However... he does need to get to 50% to avoid a run off.
Also, it is early days, with only about 3% counted.
A windfall tax is a great idea because the idea that energy is a free market is bullshit anyway. These guys live by regulatory and political arbitrage.
It won’t raise much but every little helps. The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts.
“ The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts. “
I agree on that. The drop in Tory polling seems now to date from very moment they cut it.
There's a number of things that have happened in the past twelve months to make people of all shades disappointed in the Government.
While people seem keen in general to blame/credit [delete as appropriate] Partygate as the reason, its worth noting that the Tories were already behind in the polls even before Partygate began.
Allegra Stratton resigned early December, that was the beginning of Partygate really, but crossover had already been reached in the polls in November and Labour had more poll leads than the Tories in November and momentum was only going one way.
For some it might be UC, for others (like myself) it was raising National Insurance.
But the government's unpopularity is about much more and much more systemic than who may or may not have had alcohol on a random night two years ago.
The polls began to turn in June. It's been pretty steady. The big crater was Patterson.
The crater was NI rise and UC cut.
NI rise was a key election promise shredded Every single voter though UC cut was wrong with families, the poorest in our society, already struggling. People not work shy, doing numerous jobs for their families not even standing still their finances going backward, the sleepless nights of worry. Whilst the architect of the cut is how the other half live.
Typical PB we can’t even agree on this.
The polls dropped almost imperceptibly slowly from June onwards. They reached crossover in November at the time of Patterson. There hasn't been a Tory lead since early December as Sunil is fond of reminding us. Patterson was the turning point. It wasn't policy. It was perception. The other stuff has re-inforced that view, yes.
Since it takes a few weeks normally for news to filter through to opinion polls, if they reached crossover at the point of Patterson then you should look at a few weeks before Patterson to see what caused crossover.
What happened a few weeks before Patterson?
People realised they'd been conned? It's rarely one thing. The polls had been drifting since Hartlepool. The Budget and Patterson was a one-two. We've been conned. You can't see it. Maybe most won't. But it's a grift. Nothing more nor less
On the two weeks to show fully in polls, the last fortnight has been bad news for government, the first weeks of June can be grim polls for them?
If the crisis budget that is Not Crisis Budget paid for by windfall tax that is Not Windfall Tax bombs too, maybe a few poll shares in the terrible twenties?
What happened to this months Kantor, that may have been the Tories last ray of polling light, for something like six years?
rcs1000 - You may have missed what I said in an earlier comment: "Mass shooters do seem to be more likely to be white, even allowing for the differences in the sizes of the groups". (That was at 3:59 PM, Western Daylight Time. I'm not sure where you are posting from so I don't know what time that would be, for you.)
I'm in sunny LA.
My point was that "stop and frisk" is unlikely to stop mass school shootings.
It may have an effect on overall crime rates, but - of course - at the cost of dramatically increasing tensions. (See the lacrosse bus pull over from 10 days ago.)
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Here are some ways:
1) Pay more tax 2) Reduce government spending on other things 3) Save more money 4) Create more wealth
Now how many people want to do any of that ?
I don't think people are opposed to creating wealth, we just have no idea how.
You could do some of these things:
- Encourage immigration
Pretty much the reverse of what the current government is doing.
“The number of visas issued to migrants from outside of the EU reached a record in 2021 as the first year of the UK's post-Brexit rules led to a more liberal immigration system, the Times has revealed. Home Office figures show that 843,538 non-EU migrants were granted visas to live, work and study in Britain last year.
The figure is a 107,000 increase when compared to 2019.”
There are two confounding factors, though:
1) Hong Kong; and 2) Our foreign student numbers are at record levels partly because Chinese and Indian students who would otherwise have gone to Australia/NZ have come here.
But overall, the “no one will want to come to nasty brexit Britain” stuff has been shown for the nonsense it always was. As if the average Indian or Chinese 18 year old gives a toss about internal UK politics.
Brown and black immigrants don't count to Remainers. They are mainly upset we don't let in unskilled white ones.
Found this for you, @Aslan. Something to ponder as you pause between shit-posts.
Yes. A very reasonable thing to control all those unskilled white people coming to the UK. They have been replaced by high skilled and mid skilled non-white people. This appears to upset you.
The thing that seems strange about all the comments saying pressure must be put on Ukraine to give up territory or Putin must be given an off ramp, etc, is that it’s all unnecessary. If the different governments want to make their views known to the Ukr govt, they can...
Saying it out loud only puts more pressure on Ukr and gives more hope to Putin. So why do it? I can’t think of one thing it gains but publicity and point scoring. Far better to provide what aid to Ukr you want, quietly let your position be known, and then step back.
I don’t think it’s the governments saying this. I think it’s the likes of Schroeder. (“Senior figures”). They have lost but are still trying to influence the debate in Russia’s favour
They are the worst, but I wouldn't underestimate the willingness of the French, German, Italian or Hungarian governments to push for Ukraine to make "concessions".
But the US and UK will fight to the last Ukrainian.
The plan is to fight to the last Russian.
Who has his finger on a big red button. What could possibly go wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Russians handed their arses on a plate as much as the next man. But the notion that it is somehow immoral to seek ways to end the war, save lives and reduce the risk of nuclear annihilation, even if it means giving the Russians their pyrrhic victory, is absurd.
And do your 'ways to end the war' amount to anything beyond giving Putin want he wants ?
I am not entirely convinced by the abortion lowers crime argument.
One might better argue that a generous and supportive economic and social net prevents both abortion and crime. Not an argument that "pro-life" Republicans want to make though.
It's Georgia primary day in the US, and it's not going well for Mr Trump.
He backed David Purdue to take on - and defeat - incumbent Governor Kemp (who had refused to overturn the election for him). Kemp is currently leading 3-1 in the Republican Primary.
Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, who earned equal enmity for the same reasons seems is leading election denier 49-36. However... he does need to get to 50% to avoid a run off.
Also, it is early days, with only about 3% counted.
Seems to be heavy on early votes which give the Trumpists bad vibes.
I am not entirely convinced by the abortion lowers crime argument.
One might better argue that a generous and supportive economic and social net prevents both abortion and crime. Not an argument that "pro-life" Republicans want to make though.
Actually, a lot of Republicans seem to be pretty keen on post-natal abortion.
I am not entirely convinced by the abortion lowers crime argument.
One might better argue that a generous and supportive economic and social net prevents both abortion and crime. Not an argument that "pro-life" Republicans want to make though.
More than one thing can be true. Certainly abortion and teenage pregnancies can be reduced through education and support, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that abortion does lower crime.
Randy teenagers are going to be randy in any economic system and unwanted pregnancies are going to ceteris paribus remain less wanted than other potential children who will have the same economic and social net available to them, while also simultaneously having loving parents who want them.
The higher the proportion of children that are born to loving parents who want them, the lower the crime rate of the future.
rcs1000 - You may have missed what I said in an earlier comment: "Mass shooters do seem to be more likely to be white, even allowing for the differences in the sizes of the groups". (That was at 3:59 PM, Western Daylight Time. I'm not sure where you are posting from so I don't know what time that would be, for you.)
I'm in sunny LA.
My point was that "stop and frisk" is unlikely to stop mass school shootings.
It may have an effect on overall crime rates, but - of course - at the cost of dramatically increasing tensions. (See the lacrosse bus pull over from 10 days ago.)
The US is the only country in the Western world that spends more government funds on the education of rich kids than on the education of poor kids. That is at the root of their terrible crime rates.
rcs1000 said: "But a whole school for pregnant elementary school kids seems...
Unlikely."
It wasn't a large school, Chicago is a large city, in the US students in the 8th grade are sometimes considered elementary students, and it was common for students to be held back if they were failing, so a girl might be 13 or 14, or even older, and still in elementary school.
(It has been a while, but I think they took students up through the 8th grade.)
rcs1000 said: "But a whole school for pregnant elementary school kids seems...
Unlikely."
It wasn't a large school, Chicago is a large city, in the US students in the 8th grade are sometimes considered elementary students, and it was common for students to be held back if they were failing, so a girl might be 13 or 14, or even older, and still in elementary school.
(It has been a while, but I think they took students up through the 8th grade.)
Elementary school usually runs through fifth grade (11), then middle school through to eighth (14), while High School goes to 18.
I can just about believe a Middle School (kids 11 to 14) for pregnant teens, but I am very sceptical that there was one for elementary school kids.
And a quick Google shows only a High School (the Simpson Academy) for pregnant teens.
This in a state that got rid of most sensible gun measures , and still the politicians who continue to vote for this insanity get voted in year in year out .
There are Americans who are appalled by what’s happening and must be in despair . For the rest who care more about their pathetic gun rights than the lives of children go rot in hell .
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Here are some ways:
1) Pay more tax 2) Reduce government spending on other things 3) Save more money 4) Create more wealth
Now how many people want to do any of that ?
I don't think people are opposed to creating wealth, we just have no idea how.
You could do some of these things:
- Encourage immigration
Pretty much the reverse of what the current government is doing.
“The number of visas issued to migrants from outside of the EU reached a record in 2021 as the first year of the UK's post-Brexit rules led to a more liberal immigration system, the Times has revealed. Home Office figures show that 843,538 non-EU migrants were granted visas to live, work and study in Britain last year.
The figure is a 107,000 increase when compared to 2019.”
There are two confounding factors, though:
1) Hong Kong; and 2) Our foreign student numbers are at record levels partly because Chinese and Indian students who would otherwise have gone to Australia/NZ have come here.
But overall, the “no one will want to come to nasty brexit Britain” stuff has been shown for the nonsense it always was. As if the average Indian or Chinese 18 year old gives a toss about internal UK politics.
Brown and black immigrants don't count to Remainers. They are mainly upset we don't let in unskilled white ones.
Found this for you, @Aslan. Something to ponder as you pause between shit-posts.
Yes. A very reasonable thing to control all those unskilled white people coming to the UK. They have been replaced by high skilled and mid skilled non-white people. This appears to upset you.
I agree with you, this Brexit government is as pro immigration as the previous ones we have hard last few decades. I disagree with it being so clear cut the EU immigration was so unskilled and so minded to lay down roots under FOM - many were Chef’s, people who could operate every machine in factory etc, which is skilled or at least semi skilled - and hence a lot of problems business suffering today are missing exactly the group I just described.
The idea solution would have been where people actually chose not to lay down permanent roots in this country and end up net takers such as pension, only come to our booming economy for the good paying work and filling our government coffers from various taxes, but leave long before pension age. Did we not have that more with FOM than the road you are praising us for going down?
It's Georgia primary day in the US, and it's not going well for Mr Trump.
He backed David Purdue to take on - and defeat - incumbent Governor Kemp (who had refused to overturn the election for him). Kemp is currently leading 3-1 in the Republican Primary.
Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, who earned equal enmity for the same reasons seems is leading election denier 49-36. However... he does need to get to 50% to avoid a run off.
Also, it is early days, with only about 3% counted.
Seems to be heavy on early votes which give the Trumpists bad vibes.
From Republicans. Looks like plenty of 45-voters who nevertheless voted for Kemp for Gov decided to appease the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo by voting for his anointed choice for Sec of State.
However, if Raffensperger ends up in mid-to-high 40s, he should be in good shape for the runoff.
It's Georgia primary day in the US, and it's not going well for Mr Trump.
He backed David Purdue to take on - and defeat - incumbent Governor Kemp (who had refused to overturn the election for him). Kemp is currently leading 3-1 in the Republican Primary.
Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, who earned equal enmity for the same reasons seems is leading election denier 49-36. However... he does need to get to 50% to avoid a run off.
Also, it is early days, with only about 3% counted.
Seems to be heavy on early votes which give the Trumpists bad vibes.
From Republicans. Looks like plenty of 45-voters who nevertheless voted for Kemp for Gov decided to appease the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo by voting for his anointed choice for Sec of State.
However, if Raffensperger ends up in mid-to-high 40s, he should be in good shape for the runoff.
With 17% reported, he's on 50.3%, outpolling Ms Hice 3-2
The thing that seems strange about all the comments saying pressure must be put on Ukraine to give up territory or Putin must be given an off ramp, etc, is that it’s all unnecessary. If the different governments want to make their views known to the Ukr govt, they can...
Saying it out loud only puts more pressure on Ukr and gives more hope to Putin. So why do it? I can’t think of one thing it gains but publicity and point scoring. Far better to provide what aid to Ukr you want, quietly let your position be known, and then step back.
I don’t think it’s the governments saying this. I think it’s the likes of Schroeder. (“Senior figures”). They have lost but are still trying to influence the debate in Russia’s favour
They are the worst, but I wouldn't underestimate the willingness of the French, German, Italian or Hungarian governments to push for Ukraine to make "concessions".
But the US and UK will fight to the last Ukrainian.
The plan is to fight to the last Russian.
Who has his finger on a big red button. What could possibly go wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Russians handed their arses on a plate as much as the next man. But the notion that it is somehow immoral to seek ways to end the war, save lives and reduce the risk of nuclear annihilation, even if it means giving the Russians their pyrrhic victory, is absurd.
That should not be your or my choice. It should only be for the Ukrainians to decide what or where their red lines are. I simply don't agree with you because giving an aggressor any sort of victory just emboldens them to try for for more next time. If that ends in my demise because they decide to chance it well that is just 'tough sh*t' and I'll not lose any sleep over that.
A windfall tax is a great idea because the idea that energy is a free market is bullshit anyway. These guys live by regulatory and political arbitrage.
It won’t raise much but every little helps. The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts.
How do E&P companies, that risk capital in the hope of finding new sources of oil and gas, live by "regulatory and political arbitrage"?
The odd windfall tax is very much at the gentle end of regulatory and political risk. They live and breath this stuff.
So, that would be "You are correct, Robert, that those companies are genuine risk takers who do not live by regulatory and political arbitrage"?
No Robert, I don’t agree.
I think you have an over-prescriptive definition of arbitrage.
Energy is essentially political. Perhaps the most political thing going. Oil majors play the regulatory and political game - overtly and covertly - in order to find an accommodating environment - across multiple jurisdictions.
A windfall tax is a great idea because the idea that energy is a free market is bullshit anyway. These guys live by regulatory and political arbitrage.
It won’t raise much but every little helps. The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts.
How do E&P companies, that risk capital in the hope of finding new sources of oil and gas, live by "regulatory and political arbitrage"?
The odd windfall tax is very much at the gentle end of regulatory and political risk. They live and breath this stuff.
So, that would be "You are correct, Robert, that those companies are genuine risk takers who do not live by regulatory and political arbitrage"?
No Robert, I don’t agree.
I think you have an over-prescriptive definition of arbitrage.
Energy is essentially political. Perhaps the most political thing going. Oil majors play the regulatory and political game - overtly and covertly - in order to find an accommodating environment - across multiple jurisdictions.
But that's why I specifically referred to E&P (exploration and production) companies, rather than the majors.
A windfall tax is a great idea because the idea that energy is a free market is bullshit anyway. These guys live by regulatory and political arbitrage.
It won’t raise much but every little helps. The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts.
How do E&P companies, that risk capital in the hope of finding new sources of oil and gas, live by "regulatory and political arbitrage"?
The odd windfall tax is very much at the gentle end of regulatory and political risk. They live and breath this stuff.
So, that would be "You are correct, Robert, that those companies are genuine risk takers who do not live by regulatory and political arbitrage"?
No Robert, I don’t agree.
I think you have an over-prescriptive definition of arbitrage.
Energy is essentially political. Perhaps the most political thing going. Oil majors play the regulatory and political game - overtly and covertly - in order to find an accommodating environment - across multiple jurisdictions.
Is that because (a) governments are randomly charitable to majors or (b) governments are capricious and like to change the rules randomly, causing the business to move? Because this seems to be a case that would lead us to believe in (b) as a mechanism.
It's Georgia primary day in the US, and it's not going well for Mr Trump.
He backed David Purdue to take on - and defeat - incumbent Governor Kemp (who had refused to overturn the election for him). Kemp is currently leading 3-1 in the Republican Primary.
Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, who earned equal enmity for the same reasons seems is leading election denier 49-36. However... he does need to get to 50% to avoid a run off.
Also, it is early days, with only about 3% counted.
Seems to be heavy on early votes which give the Trumpists bad vibes.
From Republicans. Looks like plenty of 45-voters who nevertheless voted for Kemp for Gov decided to appease the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo by voting for his anointed choice for Sec of State.
However, if Raffensperger ends up in mid-to-high 40s, he should be in good shape for the runoff.
With 17% reported, he's on 50.3%, outpolling Ms Hice 3-2
County breakdowns are the tea leaves here, NYT analyst picked up on Raff. just getting 50% in Richmond Co (Albany) one of the more urban (and genteel) outside Atlanta megalopolis.
The thing that seems strange about all the comments saying pressure must be put on Ukraine to give up territory or Putin must be given an off ramp, etc, is that it’s all unnecessary. If the different governments want to make their views known to the Ukr govt, they can...
Saying it out loud only puts more pressure on Ukr and gives more hope to Putin. So why do it? I can’t think of one thing it gains but publicity and point scoring. Far better to provide what aid to Ukr you want, quietly let your position be known, and then step back.
I don’t think it’s the governments saying this. I think it’s the likes of Schroeder. (“Senior figures”). They have lost but are still trying to influence the debate in Russia’s favour
They are the worst, but I wouldn't underestimate the willingness of the French, German, Italian or Hungarian governments to push for Ukraine to make "concessions".
But the US and UK will fight to the last Ukrainian.
The plan is to fight to the last Russian.
Who has his finger on a big red button. What could possibly go wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Russians handed their arses on a plate as much as the next man. But the notion that it is somehow immoral to seek ways to end the war, save lives and reduce the risk of nuclear annihilation, even if it means giving the Russians their pyrrhic victory, is absurd.
That should not be your or my choice. It should only be for the Ukrainians to decide what or where their red lines are. I simply don't agree with you because giving an aggressor any sort of victory just emboldens them to try for for more next time. If that ends in my demise because they decide to chance it well that is just 'tough sh*t' and I'll not lose any sleep over that.
Well, they are not getting intelligence and heavy weaponry from Ukrainians, so it really is the choice of various Western governments to a great extent.
Understandably, there is a big lobby in Europe not to have a decade-long proxy war on the continent funded by the Anglosphere and China.
So it will end with negotiation, and saying "no negotiations - wait for Putin to die" is a copout, because equally likely Trump or someone like Le Pen could come to power in the West, and then our holding out for a better deal was for zero.
A windfall tax is a great idea because the idea that energy is a free market is bullshit anyway. These guys live by regulatory and political arbitrage.
It won’t raise much but every little helps. The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts.
How do E&P companies, that risk capital in the hope of finding new sources of oil and gas, live by "regulatory and political arbitrage"?
The odd windfall tax is very much at the gentle end of regulatory and political risk. They live and breath this stuff.
So, that would be "You are correct, Robert, that those companies are genuine risk takers who do not live by regulatory and political arbitrage"?
No Robert, I don’t agree.
I think you have an over-prescriptive definition of arbitrage.
Energy is essentially political. Perhaps the most political thing going. Oil majors play the regulatory and political game - overtly and covertly - in order to find an accommodating environment - across multiple jurisdictions.
But that's why I specifically referred to E&P (exploration and production) companies, rather than the majors.
I think my point can be extended, perhaps less securely, to the E&P sector.
My principle argument is that it this is not a purely free market; politics intrudes; we shouldn’t be prudish about a windfall tax as if it is some blight on an exemplar of perfect competition.
A windfall tax is a great idea because the idea that energy is a free market is bullshit anyway. These guys live by regulatory and political arbitrage.
It won’t raise much but every little helps. The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts.
How do E&P companies, that risk capital in the hope of finding new sources of oil and gas, live by "regulatory and political arbitrage"?
The odd windfall tax is very much at the gentle end of regulatory and political risk. They live and breath this stuff.
So, that would be "You are correct, Robert, that those companies are genuine risk takers who do not live by regulatory and political arbitrage"?
No Robert, I don’t agree.
I think you have an over-prescriptive definition of arbitrage.
Energy is essentially political. Perhaps the most political thing going. Oil majors play the regulatory and political game - overtly and covertly - in order to find an accommodating environment - across multiple jurisdictions.
Is that because (a) governments are randomly charitable to majors or (b) governments are capricious and like to change the rules randomly, causing the business to move? Because this seems to be a case that would lead us to believe in (b) as a mechanism.
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Here are some ways:
1) Pay more tax 2) Reduce government spending on other things 3) Save more money 4) Create more wealth
Now how many people want to do any of that ?
I don't think people are opposed to creating wealth, we just have no idea how.
You could do some of these things:
- Encourage immigration
Pretty much the reverse of what the current government is doing.
“The number of visas issued to migrants from outside of the EU reached a record in 2021 as the first year of the UK's post-Brexit rules led to a more liberal immigration system, the Times has revealed. Home Office figures show that 843,538 non-EU migrants were granted visas to live, work and study in Britain last year.
The figure is a 107,000 increase when compared to 2019.”
There are two confounding factors, though:
1) Hong Kong; and 2) Our foreign student numbers are at record levels partly because Chinese and Indian students who would otherwise have gone to Australia/NZ have come here.
But overall, the “no one will want to come to nasty brexit Britain” stuff has been shown for the nonsense it always was. As if the average Indian or Chinese 18 year old gives a toss about internal UK politics.
Brown and black immigrants don't count to Remainers. They are mainly upset we don't let in unskilled white ones.
Found this for you, @Aslan. Something to ponder as you pause between shit-posts.
Yes. A very reasonable thing to control all those unskilled white people coming to the UK. They have been replaced by high skilled and mid skilled non-white people. This appears to upset you.
I agree with you, this Brexit government is as pro immigration as the previous ones we have hard last few decades. I disagree with it being so clear cut the EU immigration was so unskilled and so minded to lay down roots under FOM - many were Chef’s, people who could operate every machine in factory etc, which is skilled or at least semi skilled - and hence a lot of problems business suffering today are missing exactly the group I just described.
The idea solution would have been where people actually chose not to lay down permanent roots in this country and end up net takers such as pension, only come to our booming economy for the good paying work and filling our government coffers from various taxes, but leave long before pension age. Did we not have that more with FOM than the road you are praising us for going down?
I am not convinced anywhere near as many FOM types went back as you claim. Often they plan it that way when they first come, then stay a bit longer, then put down some roots "temporarily" and eventually don't go back.
I think the road we are going down is marginally better than the EU FOM road, but the best road of all is to recruit as many high skilled as humanly possible, but almost completely limit people likely to be net drains on the system. The fact that this government allows textile workers and shopkeepers earning 26k a year to count as "skilled migrants" is insane. Farage could have made hay with this if he hadn't been an imbecile going down the Trumpian road.
Perhaps it is a problem that many Western folk tuned out after the big series of Ukrainian victories around Kyiv, and the stories about killing generals using unsecured communications and the like. It does seem like the latest phase is bringing less feel-good news, and attention has shifted toward other newsworthy stories like Partygate.
rcs1000 - I'll try one more time and repeat what I have said before: This was in the late 1960s -- yes, I really am that old. The girls who became pregnant were often girls who had performed poorly and so had been held back one or more times. So they needed to finish their elementary education. And, I repeat, as I recall, the school took them through the 8th grade.
(If it will make you feel better, I recall being surprised at the existence of such a school at the time. And I remember how much I admired my friend, a very bright and caring young woman, for taking on such tough challenge.)
Perhaps it is a problem that many Western folk tuned out after the big series of Ukrainian victories around Kyiv, and the stories about killing generals using unsecured communications and the like. It does seem like the latest phase is bringing less feel-good news, and attention has shifted toward other newsworthy stories like Partygate.
War isn't 'feel-good' but it does seem like the war is still going very badly for Russia.
After having a wholesale retreat around Kyiv, the Russian army has now been forced to retreat from Kharkiv, Ukraine's second city, with just in the last few days Russian forces being pushed back from there back to the border.
Russian advances are slow and Ukraine has shown themselves capable of liberating land that Russia had advanced through, not just around Kyiv but Kharkiv and elsewhere too.
This can go on many ways, but it does seem logistically like Ukraine is doing better with more and more forces coming on stream for Ukraine whereas Russia is scraping the barrel of its warehouse stockpiles.
Seems like Raffensperger made it without a runoff, partly thanks to crossover Dems / independents.
You'll get the same dynamic in the presidential primaries: If Biden is running so there's no meaningful race on that side, moderates will be free to vote against Trump.
Not particularly funny (like much of Gervais' stuff). The sort of sad stuff some comedians were doing in the 1970s and 1980s against gay people, pre-Internet.
Find a group who are small and cannot answer back. Poke fun at them and say they're a danger.
Not particularly funny (like much of Gervais' stuff). The sort of sad stuff some comedians were doing in the 1970s and 1980s against gay people, pre-Internet.
Find a group who are small and cannot answer back. Poke fun at them and say they're a danger.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the trans debate, or of Ricky Gervais’ sense of humour (such as it is) it’s not really accurate to say they ‘cannot answer back.’
Not particularly funny (like much of Gervais' stuff). The sort of sad stuff some comedians were doing in the 1970s and 1980s against gay people, pre-Internet.
Find a group who are small and cannot answer back. Poke fun at them and say they're a danger.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the trans debate, or of Ricky Gervais’ sense of humour (such as it is) it’s not really accurate to say they ‘cannot answer back.’
That's an issue I have - few of the people being most screechingly pro-trans (*) appear to be trans people. Trans rights increasingly appear to be a battleground for people with no real interests in what is right for trans people. It's just a reason for an argument.
(*) Hopefully I'm not 'screechingly' pro-trans myself.
I recall a guy I met in Louisiana last month. Middle aged, white, sane, articulate, Trump voter. Yes, sane Trump voters exist. He admitted Trump is a dangerous loon but he said “the Democrats are worse”, he then reeled off a list of recent crimes in New Orleans, some of them facilitated by crazy Democrat posturing on race and crime. I later googled his claims, he was not particularly exaggerating
Then we got onto guns. He bemoaned the terrible gun crimes in Louisiana, and I replied, “Well, America will have this problem, until you make it much much harder for anyone to have guns”
He looked at me like I was lunatic. “Then how would we defend ourselves against the criminals?”
It was a reasonable point. You can’t disinvent the gun and even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow America is flooded with guns and they’re not going to disappear
It’s a tragic state of affairs and these horrible atrocities probably won’t end until technology saves America from herself, by making guns somehow unusable
I've known transgender people. I've worked with transgender people. I've been good friends with two transgender people (one pre-, one post- op). I've seen them be bullied for being different in various ways. I've talked to them about the massive difficulties they face in transitioning.
A little bit more understanding for marginalised groups would probably go a long way.
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Here are some ways:
1) Pay more tax 2) Reduce government spending on other things 3) Save more money 4) Create more wealth
Now how many people want to do any of that ?
I don't think people are opposed to creating wealth, we just have no idea how.
You could do some of these things:
- Encourage immigration
Pretty much the reverse of what the current government is doing.
“The number of visas issued to migrants from outside of the EU reached a record in 2021 as the first year of the UK's post-Brexit rules led to a more liberal immigration system, the Times has revealed. Home Office figures show that 843,538 non-EU migrants were granted visas to live, work and study in Britain last year.
The figure is a 107,000 increase when compared to 2019.”
There are two confounding factors, though:
1) Hong Kong; and 2) Our foreign student numbers are at record levels partly because Chinese and Indian students who would otherwise have gone to Australia/NZ have come here.
But overall, the “no one will want to come to nasty brexit Britain” stuff has been shown for the nonsense it always was. As if the average Indian or Chinese 18 year old gives a toss about internal UK politics.
Brown and black immigrants don't count to Remainers. They are mainly upset we don't let in unskilled white ones.
Found this for you, @Aslan. Something to ponder as you pause between shit-posts.
Yes. A very reasonable thing to control all those unskilled white people coming to the UK. They have been replaced by high skilled and mid skilled non-white people. This appears to upset you.
I agree with you, this Brexit government is as pro immigration as the previous ones we have hard last few decades. I disagree with it being so clear cut the EU immigration was so unskilled and so minded to lay down roots under FOM - many were Chef’s, people who could operate every machine in factory etc, which is skilled or at least semi skilled - and hence a lot of problems business suffering today are missing exactly the group I just described.
The idea solution would have been where people actually chose not to lay down permanent roots in this country and end up net takers such as pension, only come to our booming economy for the good paying work and filling our government coffers from various taxes, but leave long before pension age. Did we not have that more with FOM than the road you are praising us for going down?
I am not convinced anywhere near as many FOM types went back as you claim. Often they plan it that way when they first come, then stay a bit longer, then put down some roots "temporarily" and eventually don't go back.
I think the road we are going down is marginally better than the EU FOM road, but the best road of all is to recruit as many high skilled as humanly possible, but almost completely limit people likely to be net drains on the system. The fact that this government allows textile workers and shopkeepers earning 26k a year to count as "skilled migrants" is insane. Farage could have made hay with this if he hadn't been an imbecile going down the Trumpian road.
Hmm.
There's an old question, I think attributed to Dennis Healey, that goes something like "Under glorious socialism, who cleans the sewers?"
In a country where we only let immigrants in to do high-pay jobs, who does the low-pay jobs? And how do native Brits better themselves if all the top jobs have been taken by foreigners?
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
Not particularly funny (like much of Gervais' stuff). The sort of sad stuff some comedians were doing in the 1970s and 1980s against gay people, pre-Internet.
Find a group who are small and cannot answer back. Poke fun at them and say they're a danger.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the trans debate, or of Ricky Gervais’ sense of humour (such as it is) it’s not really accurate to say they ‘cannot answer back.’
That's an issue I have - few of the people being most screechingly pro-trans (*) appear to be trans people. Trans rights increasingly appear to be a battleground for people with no real interests in what is right for trans people. It's just a reason for an argument.
(*) Hopefully I'm not 'screechingly' pro-trans myself.
That’s true of most such things. Look at the Colston Four. All white, and one of them had never even been to Bristol before. Or Extinction Rebellion, which is mostly run by rich globetrotters whose concern for the environment is not noticeable in the way they live their lives.
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
There's an old saying that as people get older, they get more small-c conservative. I don't think I am. As I get older, I'm getting more let-everyone-live-life-as-they-want-as-long-as-they-dont-hurt-others.
There's enough in life to be concerned about without getting het up about the way a person dresses, what a person does to another consenting adult, or how they identify.
I don't like the pronouns rubbish - much of it seems like pathetic virtue signalling. But if someone asks to be called by a different name or pronoun, I'll try to do so - even if I think it's silly.
Not particularly funny (like much of Gervais' stuff). The sort of sad stuff some comedians were doing in the 1970s and 1980s against gay people, pre-Internet.
Find a group who are small and cannot answer back. Poke fun at them and say they're a danger.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the trans debate, or of Ricky Gervais’ sense of humour (such as it is) it’s not really accurate to say they ‘cannot answer back.’
That's an issue I have - few of the people being most screechingly pro-trans (*) appear to be trans people. Trans rights increasingly appear to be a battleground for people with no real interests in what is right for trans people. It's just a reason for an argument.
(*) Hopefully I'm not 'screechingly' pro-trans myself.
The problematic behaviour is very rarely from Trans people themselves but from their “Allies” - typically proponents of gender theory (TLDR “gender not sex is what matters”) and more often than not, natal males. Add to that institutional capture of Stonewall who worried they had run out of causes when gay marriage was legalised and some very questionable medical practices by Tavistock/Mermaids (see Cass review) and we have a fine old mess. The issue is that the marginalised in this “debate” are not a very small minority, but slightly over half the population - women.
I recall a guy I met in Louisiana last month. Middle aged, white, sane, articulate, Trump voter. Yes, sane Trump voters exist. He admitted Trump is a dangerous loon but he said “the Democrats are worse”, he then reeled off a list of recent crimes in New Orleans, some of them facilitated by crazy Democrat posturing on race and crime. I later googled his claims, he was not particularly exaggerating
Then we got onto guns. He bemoaned the terrible gun crimes in Louisiana, and I replied, “Well, America will have this problem, until you make it much much harder for anyone to have guns”
He looked at me like I was lunatic. “Then how would we defend ourselves against the criminals?”
It was a reasonable point. You can’t disinvent the gun and even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow America is flooded with guns and they’re not going to disappear
It’s a tragic state of affairs and these horrible atrocities probably won’t end until technology saves America from herself, by making guns somehow unusable
After Dunblane, we banned guns even though criminals might not have handed theirs in. Presumably new guns are harder to find now, so gangs stab each other instead.
According to President Biden in this 2-minute speech yesterday, during the ban on sales of assault rifles, mass killings dropped, and after the ban ended, mass shootings tripled. Maybe assault weapons would be a good place to start. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61573377
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
I have encountered people who are genuinely anti-trans. They were working with people who were trans.
Awks.
But that's probably because most people rarely meet a trans person (or realise they've met one...) for such feelings to out.
"Safeguards are needed."
Gay men have raped other men in toilets. Where are the safeguard for that? None are needed, because a) it would trample on the rights of the massive majority of gay men who do not behave in such an awful manner, b) it is thankfully rare, and c) because it is unenforceable.
I recall a guy I met in Louisiana last month. Middle aged, white, sane, articulate, Trump voter. Yes, sane Trump voters exist. He admitted Trump is a dangerous loon but he said “the Democrats are worse”, he then reeled off a list of recent crimes in New Orleans, some of them facilitated by crazy Democrat posturing on race and crime. I later googled his claims, he was not particularly exaggerating
Then we got onto guns. He bemoaned the terrible gun crimes in Louisiana, and I replied, “Well, America will have this problem, until you make it much much harder for anyone to have guns”
He looked at me like I was lunatic. “Then how would we defend ourselves against the criminals?”
It was a reasonable point. You can’t disinvent the gun and even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow America is flooded with guns and they’re not going to disappear
It’s a tragic state of affairs and these horrible atrocities probably won’t end until technology saves America from herself, by making guns somehow unusable
After Dunblane, we banned guns even though criminals might not have handed theirs in. Presumably new guns are harder to find now, so gangs stab each other instead.
According to President Biden in this 2-minute speech yesterday, during the ban on sales of assault rifles, mass killings dropped, and after the ban ended, mass shootings tripled. Maybe assault weapons would be a good place to start. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61573377
Hand guns exist only to kill people, but this is the long term trend for a ban on sales. Despite all the school killings, America has chosen its path. They prefer guns to children.
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
I don't like the pronouns rubbish - much of it seems like pathetic virtue signalling. But if someone asks to be called by a different name or pronoun, I'll try to do so - even if I think it's silly.
I’d file that under “good manners” and not doing so “bad manners”.
On the other hand, public figures, like Trans women sportsmen I’ll happily call “he”, to highlight the idiocy of some of the policies adopted by governing bodies.
The thing that seems strange about all the comments saying pressure must be put on Ukraine to give up territory or Putin must be given an off ramp, etc, is that it’s all unnecessary. If the different governments want to make their views known to the Ukr govt, they can...
Saying it out loud only puts more pressure on Ukr and gives more hope to Putin. So why do it? I can’t think of one thing it gains but publicity and point scoring. Far better to provide what aid to Ukr you want, quietly let your position be known, and then step back.
I don’t think it’s the governments saying this. I think it’s the likes of Schroeder. (“Senior figures”). They have lost but are still trying to influence the debate in Russia’s favour
They are the worst, but I wouldn't underestimate the willingness of the French, German, Italian or Hungarian governments to push for Ukraine to make "concessions".
Horrible, horrible news out of the US overnight. It’s the one place on earth where I always feel European, as opposed to British or English. It is a very foreign country. They just see the world and how it works totally differently.
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
I have encountered people who are genuinely anti-trans. They were working with people who were trans.
Awks.
But that's probably because most people rarely meet a trans person (or realise they've met one...) for such feelings to out.
"Safeguards are needed."
Gay men have raped other men in toilets. Where are the safeguard for that? None are needed, because a) it would trample on the rights of the massive majority of gay men who do not behave in such an awful manner, b) it is thankfully rare, and c) because it is unenforceable.
A truly and utterly imbecilic point. Do you think banning alcohol sales to under 18s is pointless and ineffective because adults drink irresponsibly too? Or we shouldn't restrict gun sales because knives and hammers are available as murder weapons? We should have no criminal records checks on wannabe scoutmasters because the massive majority of them are entirely praiseworthy individuals? Or that a ban on people with dicks in ladies loos is in some way unenforceable?
1) Bp made a massive loss in Q1 thanks to the sudden $25bn write down of a long held overseas asset in support of UK foreign policy.
2) in the order of +80% of its underlying q1 profit was generated not by o&g extraction, refining or marketing but from commodities trading, which is almost entirely an export business and which is fast diversifying from crude to lng, power and second gen biofuels, again in support of Uk strategic objectives.
Similar is true of Shell.
Which raises two questions:
1) How can it be right to issue a “windfall” tax on a company that has made a massive financial loss, coming hot on the heels of further losses due to the demand destruction largely caused by world governments’ pandemic policies?
2) And why tax two successful British publicly listed trading businesses that are supporting Western foreign policy objectives, while the competition at Trafigura, Vitol and Total smirk at the sanctions and are hence coining it even more?
Someone on here has to be a lurking honest Conservative MP that is prepared to make these points in Parliament and call for the head of this sorry excuse for a Chancellor. The party of wealth creation my arse. And this on top of the Jobs Tax, while the triple lock remains sacrosanct.
I will become a paying Lib Dem member today. How many are there that voted for Brexit I wonder? One more by the end of the day anyway. With luck from the ashes of voting reform, we might see the birth of two new parties. One that respects wealth creation and another that promotes workers. Rather than now, where we have one that cares for nothing else but feathering the nests of asset rich pensioners and another protecting public sector interests and shirkers.
I recall a guy I met in Louisiana last month. Middle aged, white, sane, articulate, Trump voter. Yes, sane Trump voters exist. He admitted Trump is a dangerous loon but he said “the Democrats are worse”, he then reeled off a list of recent crimes in New Orleans, some of them facilitated by crazy Democrat posturing on race and crime. I later googled his claims, he was not particularly exaggerating
Then we got onto guns. He bemoaned the terrible gun crimes in Louisiana, and I replied, “Well, America will have this problem, until you make it much much harder for anyone to have guns”
He looked at me like I was lunatic. “Then how would we defend ourselves against the criminals?”
It was a reasonable point. You can’t disinvent the gun and even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow America is flooded with guns and they’re not going to disappear
It’s a tragic state of affairs and these horrible atrocities probably won’t end until technology saves America from herself, by making guns somehow unusable
After Dunblane, we banned guns even though criminals might not have handed theirs in. Presumably new guns are harder to find now, so gangs stab each other instead.
According to President Biden in this 2-minute speech yesterday, during the ban on sales of assault rifles, mass killings dropped, and after the ban ended, mass shootings tripled. Maybe assault weapons would be a good place to start. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61573377
Any restrictions would be better than none, I agree, I’m just saying the problem is a way more deeply rooted than “fixing the gun laws to make them a bit tighter”
I googled the stats. Roughly 40,000 people died by a gun in America last year - murder, suicide, accident. Another 40,000 were injured including thousands of kids
Incredible. It’s like a small but noticeable war, every year. 2/3 of a Vietnam war, every year
What America needs is something vanishingly rare, a change of culture throughout the country combined with sweeping political power and purpose, so they disarm. It has happened before. Japan has, several times, banned swords for most people - successfully - after a period of severe civil violence
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Some facts. The standard UC after rent for single under 25's is £ 265.31 per calendar month. For over 25's is £ 334.91. The average energy bill from October is predicted to be £233.33 per calendar month. This is not sustainable. Regardless of any fucker's pension fund.
And before anyone says small flat, don't use any energy. The standing charge percentage of that is huge. You could literally never turn it on and still be paying a whopping proportion.
Really? I just Googled British Gas.
Standing charge of 45p for electricity and 27p for gas. 70p per day * 30 days = £21 pcm.
So less than 10% of the predicted bill from October
Can't we find a better way of funding our retirement than leeching off people's gas bills? Is that really beyond us?
Some facts. The standard UC after rent for single under 25's is £ 265.31 per calendar month. For over 25's is £ 334.91. The average energy bill from October is predicted to be £233.33 per calendar month. This is not sustainable. Regardless of any fucker's pension fund.
And before anyone says small flat, don't use any energy. The standing charge percentage of that is huge. You could literally never turn it on and still be paying a whopping proportion.
Really? I just Googled British Gas.
Standing charge of 45p for electricity and 27p for gas. 70p per day * 30 days = £21 pcm.
So less than 10% of the predicted bill from October
That's a tripling of my standing charge. And I'm with British Gas.
I rather suspect the reason it is going up so much is to get round the fact that it's uneconomic to provide the fuel itself under the price cap.
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
I have encountered people who are genuinely anti-trans. They were working with people who were trans.
Awks.
But that's probably because most people rarely meet a trans person (or realise they've met one...) for such feelings to out.
"Safeguards are needed."
Gay men have raped other men in toilets. Where are the safeguard for that? None are needed, because a) it would trample on the rights of the massive majority of gay men who do not behave in such an awful manner, b) it is thankfully rare, and c) because it is unenforceable.
A truly and utterly imbecilic point. Do you think banning alcohol sales to under 18s is pointless and ineffective because adults drink irresponsibly too? Or we shouldn't restrict gun sales because knives and hammers are available as murder weapons? We should have no criminal records checks on wannabe scoutmasters because the massive majority of them are entirely praiseworthy individuals? Or that a ban on people with dicks in ladies loos is in some way unenforceable?
Rape and assault are already criminal, in or out of toilets, by cis or trans men or women.
A windfall tax is a great idea because the idea that energy is a free market is bullshit anyway. These guys live by regulatory and political arbitrage.
It won’t raise much but every little helps. The immediate fiscal priority must be to reverse the universal credit cuts.
How do E&P companies, that risk capital in the hope of finding new sources of oil and gas, live by "regulatory and political arbitrage"?
How much of BP and Shell’s profit is from trading?
I recall a guy I met in Louisiana last month. Middle aged, white, sane, articulate, Trump voter. Yes, sane Trump voters exist. He admitted Trump is a dangerous loon but he said “the Democrats are worse”, he then reeled off a list of recent crimes in New Orleans, some of them facilitated by crazy Democrat posturing on race and crime. I later googled his claims, he was not particularly exaggerating
Then we got onto guns. He bemoaned the terrible gun crimes in Louisiana, and I replied, “Well, America will have this problem, until you make it much much harder for anyone to have guns”
He looked at me like I was lunatic. “Then how would we defend ourselves against the criminals?”
It was a reasonable point. You can’t disinvent the gun and even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow America is flooded with guns and they’re not going to disappear
It’s a tragic state of affairs and these horrible atrocities probably won’t end until technology saves America from herself, by making guns somehow unusable
After Dunblane, we banned guns even though criminals might not have handed theirs in. Presumably new guns are harder to find now, so gangs stab each other instead.
According to President Biden in this 2-minute speech yesterday, during the ban on sales of assault rifles, mass killings dropped, and after the ban ended, mass shootings tripled. Maybe assault weapons would be a good place to start. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61573377
Hand guns exist only to kill people, but this is the long term trend for a ban on sales. Despite all the school killings, America has chosen its path. They prefer guns to children.
You have to put yourself in the mind of an American citizen.
Say a hard left Democrat president comes to power, and tries to ban guns and get all Americans to yield their guns to the authorities
America is flooded with guns, so the criminals have plenty of them. The only people that will give up their guns are the law abiding citizens, who will then be effectively disarmed in the face of highly-armed villains, and a pretty trigger-happy police force. As an American, I would not vote for that, I would probably want to keep my gun, just in case
As I say, the problem is much deeper and more intractable that “sorting the gun laws”. It requires a cultural or technological revolution. The latter is more likely
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
I have encountered people who are genuinely anti-trans. They were working with people who were trans.
Awks.
But that's probably because most people rarely meet a trans person (or realise they've met one...) for such feelings to out.
"Safeguards are needed."
Gay men have raped other men in toilets. Where are the safeguard for that? None are needed, because a) it would trample on the rights of the massive majority of gay men who do not behave in such an awful manner, b) it is thankfully rare, and c) because it is unenforceable.
A truly and utterly imbecilic point. Do you think banning alcohol sales to under 18s is pointless and ineffective because adults drink irresponsibly too? Or we shouldn't restrict gun sales because knives and hammers are available as murder weapons? We should have no criminal records checks on wannabe scoutmasters because the massive majority of them are entirely praiseworthy individuals? Or that a ban on people with dicks in ladies loos is in some way unenforceable?
It really isn't imbecilic.
Let's take your last line. How do you 'enforce' people with dicks not going into ladies' loos? How do you check? Does someone stand outside checking people when they go in? Does Mrs J have to 'prove' she's a woman before she enters the hallowed sanctum?
How do you enforce it?
If someone commits abuse, prosecute them. Have an environment where victims can come forward and their claims will be investigated (we often fall at this fence).
And people transitioning need to live as their new 'gender' for two years. If you're MtoF, that involves dressing and living as a woman for two years. And yes, using women's loos.
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
I have encountered people who are genuinely anti-trans. They were working with people who were trans.
Awks.
But that's probably because most people rarely meet a trans person (or realise they've met one...) for such feelings to out.
"Safeguards are needed."
Gay men have raped other men in toilets. Where are the safeguard for that? None are needed, because a) it would trample on the rights of the massive majority of gay men who do not behave in such an awful manner, b) it is thankfully rare, and c) because it is unenforceable.
A truly and utterly imbecilic point. Do you think banning alcohol sales to under 18s is pointless and ineffective because adults drink irresponsibly too? Or we shouldn't restrict gun sales because knives and hammers are available as murder weapons? We should have no criminal records checks on wannabe scoutmasters because the massive majority of them are entirely praiseworthy individuals? Or that a ban on people with dicks in ladies loos is in some way unenforceable?
I'm surprised you didn't pick up on the fact the URL says a man raped a toilet.
1) Bp made a massive loss in Q1 thanks to the sudden $25bn write down of a long held overseas asset in support of UK foreign policy.
2) in the order of +80% of its underlying q1 profit was generated not by o&g extraction, refining or marketing but from commodities trading, which is almost entirely an export business and which is fast diversifying from crude to lng, power and second gen biofuels, again in support of Uk strategic objectives.
Similar is true of Shell.
Which raises two questions:
1) How can it be right to issue a “windfall” tax on a company that has made a massive financial loss, coming hot on the heels of further losses due to the demand destruction largely caused by world governments’ pandemic policies?
2) And why tax two successful British publicly listed trading businesses that are supporting Western foreign policy objectives, while the competition at Trafigura, Vitol and Total smirk at the sanctions and are hence coining it even more?
Someone on here has to be a lurking honest Conservative MP that is prepared to make these points in Parliament and call for the head of this sorry excuse for a Chancellor. The party of wealth creation my arse. And this on top of the Jobs Tax, while the triple lock remains sacrosanct.
I will become a paying Lib Dem member today. How many are there that voted for Brexit I wonder? One more by the end of the day anyway. With luck from the ashes of voting reform, we might see the birth of two new parties. One that respects wealth creation and another that promotes workers. Rather than now, where we have one that cares for nothing else but feathering the nests of asset rich pensioners and another protecting public sector interests and shirkers.
Look who's long Shell and BP.
This redistributes income from rich pensioners who own equities, to poor pensioners who don't. Huzzah. And 25bn is peanuts, less than half the Deepwater bill, so all good. Huzzah again.
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
Gay men have raped other men in toilets.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
I think we’ll agree that on average men are physically stronger than women and the overwhelming proportion of sexual assaults are carried out by men upon women.
Hence the concern over natal males having access to traditionally female only spaces. And shutting down any debate on the topic by describing such concerns as “not valid” (Sturgeon).
Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
I have encountered people who are genuinely anti-trans. They were working with people who were trans.
Awks.
But that's probably because most people rarely meet a trans person (or realise they've met one...) for such feelings to out.
"Safeguards are needed."
Gay men have raped other men in toilets. Where are the safeguard for that? None are needed, because a) it would trample on the rights of the massive majority of gay men who do not behave in such an awful manner, b) it is thankfully rare, and c) because it is unenforceable.
A truly and utterly imbecilic point. Do you think banning alcohol sales to under 18s is pointless and ineffective because adults drink irresponsibly too? Or we shouldn't restrict gun sales because knives and hammers are available as murder weapons? We should have no criminal records checks on wannabe scoutmasters because the massive majority of them are entirely praiseworthy individuals? Or that a ban on people with dicks in ladies loos is in some way unenforceable?
Rape and assault are already criminal, in or out of toilets, by cis or trans men or women.
JJ, personally if your lad likes scary rides I would take him to Alton Towers. It's an experience he will never forget.
I love York but with an 8 year old? Erm ...
We went with our three (11, 10 and 6 at the time) to York last October. Had a brilliant time. Open top bus, city walls, railway museum, Jorvik... barely scratched the surface. The castle museum is ace too. And just the feel of being in the place. Almost all of what makes it fun and interesting for adults also makes it fun and interesting for kids. Spent less time in the pub than I would as an adult visitor, but there are compensations for that.
JJ, personally if your lad likes scary rides I would take him to Alton Towers. It's an experience he will never forget.
I love York but with an 8 year old? Erm ...
We went to Southampton and Portsmouth when he was five, and he loved going to Portchester Castle, seeing Mary Rose and HMS Warrior, going on the ferry to Hamble (and then on the pier train), and Fishbourne Roman Palace.
So whilst I could go to AT, I think it might be best to leave it until he's older and a little taller - he's about 130cm atm. In York we can do the Roman Walls, the Cathedral, the Shambles, the railway museum, Yorvik etc. A few hours in each one before he gets bored or wants to draw what he's seen...
1) Bp made a massive loss in Q1 thanks to the sudden $25bn write down of a long held overseas asset in support of UK foreign policy.
2) in the order of +80% of its underlying q1 profit was generated not by o&g extraction, refining or marketing but from commodities trading, which is almost entirely an export business and which is fast diversifying from crude to lng, power and second gen biofuels, again in support of Uk strategic objectives.
Similar is true of Shell.
Which raises two questions:
1) How can it be right to issue a “windfall” tax on a company that has made a massive financial loss, coming hot on the heels of further losses due to the demand destruction largely caused by world governments’ pandemic policies?
2) And why tax two successful British publicly listed trading businesses that are supporting Western foreign policy objectives, while the competition at Trafigura, Vitol and Total smirk at the sanctions and are hence coining it even more?
Someone on here has to be a lurking honest Conservative MP that is prepared to make these points in Parliament and call for the head of this sorry excuse for a Chancellor. The party of wealth creation my arse. And this on top of the Jobs Tax, while the triple lock remains sacrosanct.
I will become a paying Lib Dem member today. How many are there that voted for Brexit I wonder? One more by the end of the day anyway. With luck from the ashes of voting reform, we might see the birth of two new parties. One that respects wealth creation and another that promotes workers. Rather than now, where we have one that cares for nothing else but feathering the nests of asset rich pensioners and another protecting public sector interests and shirkers.
Look who's long Shell and BP.
This redistributes income from rich pensioners who own equities, to poor pensioners who don't. Huzzah. And 25bn is peanuts, less than half the Deepwater bill, so all good. Huzzah again.
I am long neither. But I do understand that we will need both firms to remain strong if we are to a) effect a timely transition to clean energy, b) reacquire energy security.
This is puerile politics focusing on a superficially hypothecated tax when it’s nothing of the sort. All the while Russian crude has been merrily flowing into French and German refineries, not to mention the gas. If you want to tax trading businesses then fine but that’s also a windfall tax on banks and hedge funds.
Comments
Its wrong against your claims because Brexit hasn't led to a fall in migration, its led to controlled migration and a more liberal immigration system overall (which is what was promised) which is the right thing to do and something you should be endorsing.
Its also wrong because the problem there is that many of the words for what could be termed sovereignty are synonyms that appear in big writing there whereas immigration is in bold as pretty much the only word for immigration there.
If you look at polls which measured it numerically, immigration was actually the number two reason behind sovereignty.
He’s literally named himself after a divine entity.
There’s no hope I’m afraid .
Sad.
How’s our bet going? Quite bad for you!
If we hadn't, last year would have been bad for you!
A personal note: In the late 1960s, I taught in a slum school on the west side of Chicago. It was an elementary school, so we only had one full-time police officer on duty. (A nearby high school had four.) My experience then persuaded me that crime i our inner cities is more often a cause of poverty, than the other way around.
While all that may very well be true, the mass school shootings have been in predominantly white areas:
- Springfield, Oregon, 1998 - 29 shot
- Littleton, Colorado, 1999 - 36
- Sandy Hook, Conneticut, 2012 - 30
- Parkland Florida, 2018 - 34
Windfall tax as Gardenwalker flagged up won’t bring in much, even if you get it all. The Times say it will partly find the party box of measures to help the frustrated voters. But the way they are setting up Not Windfall Tax - it’s an Investment Stimulus Scheme, is, if we wind forward, unlikely to bring much actual income in!
Incredible. Just as I think they couldn’t do anything more stupid than gift Starmer a huge win on Windfall Tax, they are going to gift Starmer the huge win, and not even get the benefit of much of the windfall tax money!
Tell me i’m wrong. I’m not am I?
To let this government limp on like this for two years is inhumane . It should be taken to a vets and put out of its suffering.
Two stories for you: First, in my youth, this was often said to happened to a friend of theirs, or even to themselves. A boy arrives for a first date, and is questioned by the girl's father, while she is finishing getting ready. (That would have been common at the time.) To impress the boy, the father just happened to be cleaning a gun when the boy came in.
Second: A friend of mine taught at a school in Chicago for pregnant elementary school girls. I once asked her who the father was in most of the cases. She told me that it was usually the girl's mother's boyfriend.
I'm curious given Jim thinks that fatherless African American children are most likely to grow up into being criminals, whether he thinks that unmarried African American [and other] women carrying unwanted foetuses should be denied legal methods to dispose of those foetuses in a way that is demonstrated to prevent crime while respecting women's freedom . . . or if they should be compelled to have a child they do not want, who is then at high risk of providing crime he does not want?
Ummm: elementary school runs through to just turned eleven. I mean, it's possible, because some of the girls will have had their first period before they head off to middle school... But a whole school for pregnant elementary school kids seems...
Unlikely.
A personal note: In the late 1960s, I taught in a slum school on the west side of Chicago. It was an elementary school, so we only had one full-time police officer on duty. (A nearby high school had four.) My experience then persuaded me that crime i our inner cities is more often a cause of poverty, than the other way around.
The two are entwined in a vicious cycle.
The other big stimulus to violent crime is disrespect. This article coversit:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates
I suspect that you are probably are correct that not many the victims of Epstein nor northern grooming gangs had much contact with their fathers. I wouldn't get into victim blaming though as this was not their fault.
Worth noting too that many of the abusers were married family men. Marriage and family life are no panacea for crime, indeed, I suspect that these abusers were not very nice to their own families either.
If a pregnant teenage woman, or in the extraordinarily unlikely event of elementary school pregnancies, pregnant pre-teens, does not want to have a child out of wedlock where there would be no father etc then a legal solution to ensure that they don't have a child works nicely for them and for society.
Some estimates show that legalised abortion leads to a 45% fall in crime, since unwanted would-be babies are the would-be criminals of the future.
Turns out unsurprisingly that wanted children are more likely to have households that want them and parents who look after and provide good role models for them.
He backed David Purdue to take on - and defeat - incumbent Governor Kemp (who had refused to overturn the election for him). Kemp is currently leading 3-1 in the Republican Primary.
Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, who earned equal enmity for the same reasons seems is leading election denier 49-36. However... he does need to get to 50% to avoid a run off.
Also, it is early days, with only about 3% counted.
If the crisis budget that is Not Crisis Budget paid for by windfall tax that is Not Windfall Tax bombs too, maybe a few poll shares in the terrible twenties?
What happened to this months Kantor, that may have been the Tories last ray of polling light, for something like six years?
Just 3% reported but trend appears clear . . .
Brian Kemp*
22,886 72.7%
David Perdue
7,063 22.4%
Kandiss Taylor
1,184 3.8%
Total reported
31,462
Ditto in GOP primary for US Senator
Herschel Walker
27,073 71.5%
Gary Black
5,592 14.8%
Latham Saddler
2,240 5.9%
Total reported
37,853
My point was that "stop and frisk" is unlikely to stop mass school shootings.
It may have an effect on overall crime rates, but - of course - at the cost of dramatically increasing tensions. (See the lacrosse bus pull over from 10 days ago.)
One might better argue that a generous and supportive economic and social net prevents both abortion and crime. Not an argument that "pro-life" Republicans want to make though.
GA Secretary of State
Brad Raffensperger*
18,107 49.6%
Jody Hice
12,451 34.1%
David Belle Isle
3,245 8.9%
T.J. Hudson
2,690 7.4%
Randy teenagers are going to be randy in any economic system and unwanted pregnancies are going to ceteris paribus remain less wanted than other potential children who will have the same economic and social net available to them, while also simultaneously having loving parents who want them.
The higher the proportion of children that are born to loving parents who want them, the lower the crime rate of the future.
Unlikely."
It wasn't a large school, Chicago is a large city, in the US students in the 8th grade are sometimes considered elementary students, and it was common for students to be held back if they were failing, so a girl might be 13 or 14, or even older, and still in elementary school.
(It has been a while, but I think they took students up through the 8th grade.)
I can just about believe a Middle School (kids 11 to 14) for pregnant teens, but I am very sceptical that there was one for elementary school kids.
And a quick Google shows only a High School (the Simpson Academy) for pregnant teens.
Marjorie Taylor Greene*
2,289 67.6%
Jennifer Strahan
499 +14.7%
Eric Cunningham
246 +7.3%
Total reported
3,386
This in a state that got rid of most sensible gun measures , and still the politicians who continue to vote for this insanity get voted in year in year out .
There are Americans who are appalled by what’s happening and must be in despair . For the rest who care more about their pathetic gun rights than the lives of children go rot in hell .
The idea solution would have been where people actually chose not to lay down permanent roots in this country and end up net takers such as pension, only come to our booming economy for the good paying work and filling our government coffers from various taxes, but leave long before pension age. Did we not have that more with FOM than the road you are praising us for going down?
However, if Raffensperger ends up in mid-to-high 40s, he should be in good shape for the runoff.
https://www.salon.com/2022/04/27/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-right-wing-catholic-site-how-come-god-hasnt-destroyed-america/
I think you have an over-prescriptive definition of arbitrage.
Energy is essentially political. Perhaps the most political thing going. Oil majors play the regulatory and political game - overtly and covertly - in order to find an accommodating environment - across multiple jurisdictions.
Please don't be @HYUFD.
And this will just be another one of the fucking list, another memory, before long.
It makes me so angry.
Understandably, there is a big lobby in Europe not to have a decade-long proxy war on the continent funded by the Anglosphere and China.
So it will end with negotiation, and saying "no negotiations - wait for Putin to die" is a copout, because equally likely Trump or someone like Le Pen could come to power in the West, and then our holding out for a better deal was for zero.
My principle argument is that it this is not a purely free market; politics intrudes; we shouldn’t be prudish about a windfall tax as if it is some blight on an exemplar of perfect competition.
Ken Paxton*
138,537 64.6%
George P. Bush
75,775 35.4%
Total reported
214,312
Could be the end - or yet another derailment - for the Bush political dynasty
I think the road we are going down is marginally better than the EU FOM road, but the best road of all is to recruit as many high skilled as humanly possible, but almost completely limit people likely to be net drains on the system. The fact that this government allows textile workers and shopkeepers earning 26k a year to count as "skilled migrants" is insane. Farage could have made hay with this if he hadn't been an imbecile going down the Trumpian road.
Oh, and according to this, the Simpson Academy covers grades 6-12. https://www.niche.com/k12/simpson-academy-high-school-for-young-women-chicago-il/
(If it will make you feel better, I recall being surprised at the existence of such a school at the time. And I remember how much I admired my friend, a very bright and caring young woman, for taking on such tough challenge.)
After having a wholesale retreat around Kyiv, the Russian army has now been forced to retreat from Kharkiv, Ukraine's second city, with just in the last few days Russian forces being pushed back from there back to the border.
Russian advances are slow and Ukraine has shown themselves capable of liberating land that Russia had advanced through, not just around Kyiv but Kharkiv and elsewhere too.
This can go on many ways, but it does seem logistically like Ukraine is doing better with more and more forces coming on stream for Ukraine whereas Russia is scraping the barrel of its warehouse stockpiles.
Jessica Cisneros
12,044 +51.9%
Henry Cuellar*
11,165 +48.1%
Total reported
23,209
Note that Bexar Co (San Antonio) which is Cisneros's base is 77% reported, while Webb Co (Laredo) which is Cuellar's base in 90% reported.
Most of the remaining votes besides above are from areas that likely lean to incumbent Cuellar.
Ken Paxton*
232,257 66.0%
George P. Bush
119,470 34.0%
Total reported
351,727
So far Bush is carrying just one county: Travis (Austin)
Awful
You'll get the same dynamic in the presidential primaries: If Biden is running so there's no meaningful race on that side, moderates will be free to vote against Trump.
Boris Johnson is to announce a multi-billion pound package to help households with the cost of living within days, partly funded by a windfall tax on oil and gas companies.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-to-announce-multi-billion-pound-support-for-cost-of-living-crisis-within-days-fx0p5tk3c (£££)
The ringleader of a cannabis-smuggling gang has been running a residential home for vulnerable children despite a requirement for Ofsted to vet company directors.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drugs-gang-boss-allowed-to-run-childrens-home-times-investigation-h9lxskqxp (£££)
PB's teachers will be shocked at Ofsted's incompetence.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/may/25/ricky-gervais-netflix-special-condemned-by-lgbtq-groups-for-anti-trans-rants-masquerading-as-jokes
The clip is NSFW:
https://youtu.be/yI6qvQtrTU8
Find a group who are small and cannot answer back. Poke fun at them and say they're a danger.
https://reduxx.info/uk-woman-assaulted-by-trans-activists-at-feminist-event/
The culture wars on this topic are revolting.
The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.
Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
Just let people be and stop being so flaming nasty.
(*) Hopefully I'm not 'screechingly' pro-trans myself.
Then we got onto guns. He bemoaned the terrible gun crimes in Louisiana, and I replied, “Well, America will have this problem, until you make it much much harder for anyone to have guns”
He looked at me like I was lunatic. “Then how would we defend ourselves against the criminals?”
It was a reasonable point. You can’t disinvent the gun and even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow America is flooded with guns and they’re not going to disappear
It’s a tragic state of affairs and these horrible atrocities probably won’t end until technology saves America from herself, by making guns somehow unusable
So is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender#2020s
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2021/11/11/375-transgender-people-murdered-in-2021-deadliest-year-since-records-began/?sh=35179860321c
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
etc, etc.
I've known transgender people. I've worked with transgender people. I've been good friends with two transgender people (one pre-, one post- op). I've seen them be bullied for being different in various ways. I've talked to them about the massive difficulties they face in transitioning.
A little bit more understanding for marginalised groups would probably go a long way.
There's an old question, I think attributed to Dennis Healey, that goes something like "Under glorious socialism, who cleans the sewers?"
In a country where we only let immigrants in to do high-pay jobs, who does the low-pay jobs? And how do native Brits better themselves if all the top jobs have been taken by foreigners?
I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
But still - they can (and do) answer back.
There's enough in life to be concerned about without getting het up about the way a person dresses, what a person does to another consenting adult, or how they identify.
I don't like the pronouns rubbish - much of it seems like pathetic virtue signalling. But if someone asks to be called by a different name or pronoun, I'll try to do so - even if I think it's silly.
According to President Biden in this 2-minute speech yesterday, during the ban on sales of assault rifles, mass killings dropped, and after the ban ended, mass shootings tripled. Maybe assault weapons would be a good place to start.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61573377
Awks.
But that's probably because most people rarely meet a trans person (or realise they've met one...) for such feelings to out.
"Safeguards are needed."
Gay men have raped other men in toilets. Where are the safeguard for that? None are needed, because a) it would trample on the rights of the massive majority of gay men who do not behave in such an awful manner, b) it is thankfully rare, and c) because it is unenforceable.
And before anyone says it does not happen:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-61386625
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/man-raped-toilets-barking-station-17902126
etc, etc.
I love York but with an 8 year old? Erm ...
https://unherd.com/2022/01/the-truth-about-trans-murders/
On the other hand, public figures, like Trans women sportsmen I’ll happily call “he”, to highlight the idiocy of some of the policies adopted by governing bodies.
1) Bp made a massive loss in Q1 thanks to the sudden $25bn write down of a long held overseas asset in support of UK foreign policy.
2) in the order of +80% of its underlying q1 profit was generated not by o&g extraction, refining or marketing but from commodities trading, which is almost entirely an export business and which is fast diversifying from crude to lng, power and second gen biofuels, again in support of Uk strategic objectives.
Similar is true of Shell.
Which raises two questions:
1) How can it be right to issue a “windfall” tax on a company that has made a massive financial loss, coming hot on the heels of further losses due to the demand destruction largely caused by world governments’ pandemic policies?
2) And why tax two successful British publicly listed trading businesses that are supporting Western foreign policy objectives, while the competition at Trafigura, Vitol and Total smirk at the sanctions and are hence coining it even more?
Someone on here has to be a lurking honest Conservative MP that is prepared to make these points in Parliament and call for the head of this sorry excuse for a Chancellor. The party of wealth creation my arse. And this on top of the Jobs Tax, while the triple lock remains sacrosanct.
I will become a paying Lib Dem member today. How many are there that voted for Brexit I wonder? One more by the end of the day anyway. With luck from the ashes of voting reform, we might see the birth of two new parties. One that respects wealth creation and another that promotes workers. Rather than now, where we have one that cares for nothing else but feathering the nests of asset rich pensioners and another protecting public sector interests and shirkers.
I googled the stats. Roughly 40,000 people died by a gun in America last year - murder, suicide, accident. Another 40,000 were injured including thousands of kids
Incredible. It’s like a small but noticeable war, every year. 2/3 of a Vietnam war, every year
What America needs is something vanishingly rare, a change of culture throughout the country combined with sweeping political power and purpose, so they disarm. It has happened before. Japan has, several times, banned swords for most people - successfully - after a period of severe civil violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt
Standing charge of 45p for electricity and 27p for gas. 70p per day * 30 days = £21 pcm.
So less than 10% of the predicted bill from October
I rather suspect the reason it is going up so much is to get round the fact that it's uneconomic to provide the fuel itself under the price cap.
Say a hard left Democrat president comes to power, and tries to ban guns and get all Americans to yield their guns to the authorities
America is flooded with guns, so the criminals have plenty of them. The only people that will give up their guns are the law abiding citizens, who will then be effectively disarmed in the face of highly-armed villains, and a pretty trigger-happy police force. As an American, I would not vote for that, I would probably want to keep my gun, just in case
As I say, the problem is much deeper and more intractable that “sorting the gun laws”. It requires a cultural or technological revolution. The latter is more likely
Let's take your last line. How do you 'enforce' people with dicks not going into ladies' loos? How do you check? Does someone stand outside checking people when they go in? Does Mrs J have to 'prove' she's a woman before she enters the hallowed sanctum?
How do you enforce it?
If someone commits abuse, prosecute them. Have an environment where victims can come forward and their claims will be investigated (we often fall at this fence).
And people transitioning need to live as their new 'gender' for two years. If you're MtoF, that involves dressing and living as a woman for two years. And yes, using women's loos.
This redistributes income from rich pensioners who own equities, to poor pensioners who don't. Huzzah. And 25bn is peanuts, less than half the Deepwater bill, so all good. Huzzah again.
Ties in with what I, and many others, feel about it:
https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/heathrow-airport-not-so-great/
I think we’ll agree that on average men are physically stronger than women and the overwhelming proportion of sexual assaults are carried out by men upon women.
Hence the concern over natal males having access to traditionally female only spaces. And shutting down any debate on the topic by describing such concerns as “not valid” (Sturgeon).
Probably some kind of point trapped in that post.
So whilst I could go to AT, I think it might be best to leave it until he's older and a little taller - he's about 130cm atm. In York we can do the Roman Walls, the Cathedral, the Shambles, the railway museum, Yorvik etc. A few hours in each one before he gets bored or wants to draw what he's seen...
Although the height restrictions at AT aren't as onerous as I expected:
https://www.altontowers.com/plan-your-visit/resort-information/height-restrictions/
(He's actually seven; he's eight next month.)
This is puerile politics focusing on a superficially hypothecated tax when it’s nothing of the sort. All the while Russian crude has been merrily flowing into French and German refineries, not to mention the gas. If you want to tax trading businesses then fine but that’s also a windfall tax on banks and hedge funds.