Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
Edit: and you are not quite right either because eg Trafford Council says "YOU MUST NOT" but that is not the law.
I am glad i don't own a business that is public facing!
Assistance cats have no official status in the UK.
Perhaps it's time for a scheme.
Now, where's my assistance rhino...
You joke, but US airlines finally drew the line at a peacock being taken on a flight and this morning BBC showed an assistance horse being taken on the tube. It was quite a small horse.
People get an assistance horse when they profess fear of dogs, I think.
I'd would be inclined to suggest treating the fear of dogs.
But it could be tasty under discrimination law, given eg Islamic beliefs about dogs.
And if the horse is the same size as a dog, can do the job, and is as 'continent' as a guide dog ...
But how does the horse get down the escalator? Obviously the one I saw managed it.
Heh. I think 1/3 of stations are accessible for wheelchair-sized horses.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Primary schools are in every town and city in the UK too.
You're being as ridiculous as someone saying Christmas doesn't start until 25 December when people have Christmas Trees and Christmas songs and Christmas parties all throughout December.
Christmas season does not start either officially until December 25th, the first day of Christmas
"Christmas season" being advent. Which starts way before that. As you surely know Theresa being the daughter of a clergyman and all.
Lies. TheresaHY is the only expert we need on the Church.
It's a bit like claiming that Easter Sunday is all that it's at when the entire ritual and liturgical process toward it of Holy Week is an integral part.
Holy week may lead up to it but Easter still does not start until Easter Sunday
Which would be "Easter Season".
your exact words were "Christmas season does not start either officially until December 25th"
Which is laughable. As usual.
Christmas does not start until Christmas Day, Easter not until Easter Sunday.
However even if you said Easter Season starts with Holy Week for example, the Jubilee Season does not start properly until the lighting of the beacons on Thursday which also is the exact day of the Coronation anniversary
So Good Friday isn't a part of Easter? Christingle services are nothing to do with Christmas?
Jubliee functions up and down the country with Jubilee bunting and Jubilee festivals has nothing to do with the Jubilee?
Preposterous.
Technically not part of Easter itself no, just as Christingle services are not part of Christmas itself as the 12 days of Christmas do not start until Christmas.
However even if they were the Palace has made clear the formal Jubilee celebration does not start until Trooping of the Colour and the lighting of the beacons on Thursday, hence Thursday and Friday are the Jubilee Bank Holidays and ends with the Jubilee Pageant on Sunday afternoon.
So by Monday week the Jubilee celebrations will officially be over
Please show me where the "Palace has made clear" that schools celebrating the Jubilee this week are not a part of the Jubilee celebrations.
I very much doubt the Palace are as pigheaded and ignorant as that, and rather expect they'd encourage and welcome those celebrations instead.
The Jubilee Central weekend starts on Thursday and ends on Sunday, anything else outside that period is not part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration
You're wrong, its not a part of the Central weekend. It is a part of the Jubilee celebration, as even the Royal Family themselves are saying.
The Central weekend is the main point of it, but the Jubilee celebration spreads far either side of it. At the encouragement of the Royal Family themselves.
The Central weekend is the main Jubilee celebration ie Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. That is when the Bank Holidays are. Anything before or after that period does not come under the main central weekend Jubilee celebration therefore
When is the Marylebone Line celebration? The Jubilee and Central lines appear to have one?
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
But I believe jaywalking is not a crime so what will they charge you with?
Nothing. It is nevertheless a requirement.
No it isn't, any more than not doing more than 1 hour of exercise was a requirement.
Guidance isn't law. That is guidance, and Trafford are wrong to use the words "must not" the Highway Code doesn't say "must not" because its not the law.
Hmm, roughly I think. If you were in flagrant disregard of the HWC while driving you might find yourself charged with a number of offences, including driving without due care etc.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Ironic really given the cost of fuel. Complete waste of expensive energy.
*checks*
And "every town and city in the UK" appears to be demonstrably untrue, on a quick google check.
Given the SNP had ruled out new oil fields in Scotland don't you Nationalists dare have the cheek to complain about lack of energy!!
You really do need to do your homework. Oil fields are not a devolved matter. It was HMG that ruled it out (but have now U-turned). We would have been in a better position energy wise if HMG had been more supportive of renewables.
The UK has amongst the highest percentage of renewable in the developed world, it is however Sturgeon who has ruled out new oil fields
And Ms S is pointing out the blindingly obvious - that it will take too long to develop new oilfields to reesolve the current crisis.
No wonder the UK is in the current state when this is the level of strategic thinking coming from the Tories. CAlendars are there for a reason, and not just Advent calendars.
Your highly incomplete and hopelessly biased interpretation of a commitment away from oil to other energy sources, not to mention international commitments on global warming.
It was you having the audacity to whinge about pressure on energy supplies when your useless FM and SNP leader refuses to use one of the key energy sources in Scotland
"refuses to use". I didn't know they had closed down the oil industry. And she is talking about 5-10-20 years in the future.
I think you are Suella Braverman and claim my 5 debased Henry VIII silver-plated copper shillings.
Sturgeon opposes every proposed new oil field in Scotland despite the energy they will provide
You blithering halfwitted dullard, why not given London steals all the money. Better in the ground than feeding the fat red faces of gross Tory crooks.
They've ditched the only channel worth watching, BBC4.
I predict it won't really happen. Its all political posturing. Look at the nasty evil Tories, causing the coverage of the Proms to be axed, I thought they were One Nation yadda yadda yadda.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
Edit: and you are not quite right either because eg Trafford Council says "YOU MUST NOT" but that is not the law.
As far as I know pedestrian crossing lights are advisory only.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Primary schools are in every town and city in the UK too.
You're being as ridiculous as someone saying Christmas doesn't start until 25 December when people have Christmas Trees and Christmas songs and Christmas parties all throughout December.
Christmas season does not start either officially until December 25th, the first day of Christmas
"Christmas season" being advent. Which starts way before that. As you surely know Theresa being the daughter of a clergyman and all.
Lies. TheresaHY is the only expert we need on the Church.
It's a bit like claiming that Easter Sunday is all that it's at when the entire ritual and liturgical process toward it of Holy Week is an integral part.
Holy week may lead up to it but Easter still does not start until Easter Sunday
Which would be "Easter Season".
your exact words were "Christmas season does not start either officially until December 25th"
Which is laughable. As usual.
Christmas does not start until Christmas Day, Easter not until Easter Sunday.
However even if you said Easter Season starts with Holy Week for example, the Jubilee Season does not start properly until the lighting of the beacons on Thursday which also is the exact day of the Coronation anniversary
So Good Friday isn't a part of Easter? Christingle services are nothing to do with Christmas?
Jubliee functions up and down the country with Jubilee bunting and Jubilee festivals has nothing to do with the Jubilee?
Preposterous.
Technically not part of Easter itself no, just as Christingle services are not part of Christmas itself as the 12 days of Christmas do not start until Christmas.
However even if they were the Palace has made clear the formal Jubilee celebration does not start until Trooping of the Colour and the lighting of the beacons on Thursday, hence Thursday and Friday are the Jubilee Bank Holidays and ends with the Jubilee Pageant on Sunday afternoon.
So by Monday week the Jubilee celebrations will officially be over
Please show me where the "Palace has made clear" that schools celebrating the Jubilee this week are not a part of the Jubilee celebrations.
I very much doubt the Palace are as pigheaded and ignorant as that, and rather expect they'd encourage and welcome those celebrations instead.
The Jubilee Central weekend starts on Thursday and ends on Sunday, anything else outside that period is not part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration
You're wrong, its not a part of the Central weekend. It is a part of the Jubilee celebration, as even the Royal Family themselves are saying.
The Central weekend is the main point of it, but the Jubilee celebration spreads far either side of it. At the encouragement of the Royal Family themselves.
The Central weekend is the main Jubilee celebration ie Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. That is when the Bank Holidays are. Anything before or after that period does not come under the main central weekend Jubilee celebration therefore
Nobody said it was part of the central weekend, you introduced the term central.
We said it was a part of the Jubilee celebrations and it is. As the Royal Family, DCMS, the Guides, the Legion, Her Majesty and more have made clear.
Its absurd. HaughtyYUFD thinks he is the arbiter of everything. Declares the mother church of the Anglican Communion to have nothing to do with anything thats not England. Declares that "Christmas Season" starts only on Christmas Day despite (I assume) him sitting through so many advent sermons in Christmas season in his church. And now this:
The Jubilee Central weekend starts on Thursday and ends on Sunday, anything else outside that period is not part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration
So that Jubilee bash. The one with Tom Cruise. That was live on the telly last week. With THE QUEEN sat there. Was not "part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration"
Laughable, arrogant, absurd.
You clearly have no clue. The Church of England is only the established church in England and the Queen is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England NOT the wider Anglican communion of which the Church of England is only first amongst equals.
Advent is the lead up to Christmas NOT Christmas itself.
The horse show was not part of the Central Jubilee weekend either, merely the lead up to it
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Primary schools are in every town and city in the UK too.
You're being as ridiculous as someone saying Christmas doesn't start until 25 December when people have Christmas Trees and Christmas songs and Christmas parties all throughout December.
Christmas season does not start either officially until December 25th, the first day of Christmas
"Christmas season" being advent. Which starts way before that. As you surely know Theresa being the daughter of a clergyman and all.
Lies. TheresaHY is the only expert we need on the Church.
It's a bit like claiming that Easter Sunday is all that it's at when the entire ritual and liturgical process toward it of Holy Week is an integral part.
Holy week may lead up to it but Easter still does not start until Easter Sunday
Which would be "Easter Season".
your exact words were "Christmas season does not start either officially until December 25th"
Which is laughable. As usual.
Christmas does not start until Christmas Day, Easter not until Easter Sunday.
However even if you said Easter Season starts with Holy Week for example, the Jubilee Season does not start properly until the lighting of the beacons on Thursday which also is the exact day of the Coronation anniversary
So Good Friday isn't a part of Easter? Christingle services are nothing to do with Christmas?
Jubliee functions up and down the country with Jubilee bunting and Jubilee festivals has nothing to do with the Jubilee?
Preposterous.
Technically not part of Easter itself no, just as Christingle services are not part of Christmas itself as the 12 days of Christmas do not start until Christmas.
However even if they were the Palace has made clear the formal Jubilee celebration does not start until Trooping of the Colour and the lighting of the beacons on Thursday, hence Thursday and Friday are the Jubilee Bank Holidays and ends with the Jubilee Pageant on Sunday afternoon.
So by Monday week the Jubilee celebrations will officially be over
Please show me where the "Palace has made clear" that schools celebrating the Jubilee this week are not a part of the Jubilee celebrations.
I very much doubt the Palace are as pigheaded and ignorant as that, and rather expect they'd encourage and welcome those celebrations instead.
The Jubilee Central weekend starts on Thursday and ends on Sunday, anything else outside that period is not part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration
You're wrong, its not a part of the Central weekend. It is a part of the Jubilee celebration, as even the Royal Family themselves are saying.
The Central weekend is the main point of it, but the Jubilee celebration spreads far either side of it. At the encouragement of the Royal Family themselves.
The Central weekend is the main Jubilee celebration ie Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. That is when the Bank Holidays are. Anything before or after that period does not come under the main central weekend Jubilee celebration therefore
Nobody said it was part of the central weekend, you introduced the term central.
We said it was a part of the Jubilee celebrations and it is. As the Royal Family, DCMS, the Guides, the Legion, Her Majesty and more have made clear.
Its absurd. HaughtyYUFD thinks he is the arbiter of everything. Declares the mother church of the Anglican Communion to have nothing to do with anything thats not England. Declares that "Christmas Season" starts only on Christmas Day despite (I assume) him sitting through so many advent sermons in Christmas season in his church. And now this:
The Jubilee Central weekend starts on Thursday and ends on Sunday, anything else outside that period is not part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration
So that Jubilee bash. The one with Tom Cruise. That was live on the telly last week. With THE QUEEN sat there. Was not "part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration"
Laughable, arrogant, absurd.
You clearly have no clue. The Church of England is only the established church in England and the Queen is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England NOT the wider Anglican communion of which the Church of England is only first amongst equals.
Advent is the lead up to Christmas NOT Christmas itself.
The horse show was not part of the Central Jubilee weekend either
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
But I believe jaywalking is not a crime so what will they charge you with?
I remember being spoken to by a very polite US cop (I am white) when a teen. He said "Don't you have jaywalking in your country?" I'd honestly never heard of the word. I grew up in a house on an A road. If we'd obeyed the Highway Code to the letter we'd have never got to the shop before closing time.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
Edit: and you are not quite right either because eg Trafford Council says "YOU MUST NOT" but that is not the law.
As far as I know pedestrian crossing lights are advisory only.
The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The only thing illegal AFAICS in the Highway Code for Pedestrians is not to hang onto a moving vehicle ("MUST NOT").
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Ironic really given the cost of fuel. Complete waste of expensive energy.
*checks*
And "every town and city in the UK" appears to be demonstrably untrue, on a quick google check.
Given the SNP had ruled out new oil fields in Scotland don't you Nationalists dare have the cheek to complain about lack of energy!!
You really do need to do your homework. Oil fields are not a devolved matter. It was HMG that ruled it out (but have now U-turned). We would have been in a better position energy wise if HMG had been more supportive of renewables.
The UK has amongst the highest percentage of renewable in the developed world, it is however Sturgeon who has ruled out new oil fields
And Ms S is pointing out the blindingly obvious - that it will take too long to develop new oilfields to reesolve the current crisis.
No wonder the UK is in the current state when this is the level of strategic thinking coming from the Tories. CAlendars are there for a reason, and not just Advent calendars.
Your highly incomplete and hopelessly biased interpretation of a commitment away from oil to other energy sources, not to mention international commitments on global warming.
It was you having the audacity to whinge about pressure on energy supplies when your useless FM and SNP leader refuses to use one of the key energy sources in Scotland
"refuses to use". I didn't know they had closed down the oil industry. And she is talking about 5-10-20 years in the future.
I think you are Suella Braverman and claim my 5 debased Henry VIII silver-plated copper shillings.
Sturgeon opposes every proposed new oil field in Scotland despite the energy they will provide
You blithering halfwitted dullard, why not given London steals all the money. Better in the ground than feeding the fat red faces of gross Tory crooks.
I see the love child of the village idiot and Father Jack has decided to grace us with his whisky saturated presence
BBC still pushing this fake narrative...they make it sound like the CPS waved it away.
An inquest into the death of a railway worker will not examine if she was infected with Covid by a passenger who allegedly spat at her. Belly Mujinga, 47, died in 2020 after she was reportedly coughed on and spat at by a man known as AB.
CPS review - “As part of this review, we studied enhanced CCTV, forensic materials and witness statements. CCTV and witness evidence was insufficiently clear and consistent to substantiate allegations of deliberate coughing or spitting".
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
Edit: and you are not quite right either because eg Trafford Council says "YOU MUST NOT" but that is not the law.
As far as I know pedestrian crossing lights are advisory only.
The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The only thing illegal AFAICS in the Highway Code for Pedestrians is not to hang onto a moving vehicle ("MUST NOT").
Oh, and loitering on a pedestrian crossing. That appears to be illegal.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Ironic really given the cost of fuel. Complete waste of expensive energy.
*checks*
And "every town and city in the UK" appears to be demonstrably untrue, on a quick google check.
Given the SNP had ruled out new oil fields in Scotland don't you Nationalists dare have the cheek to complain about lack of energy!!
You really do need to do your homework. Oil fields are not a devolved matter. It was HMG that ruled it out (but have now U-turned). We would have been in a better position energy wise if HMG had been more supportive of renewables.
The UK has amongst the highest percentage of renewable in the developed world, it is however Sturgeon who has ruled out new oil fields
And Ms S is pointing out the blindingly obvious - that it will take too long to develop new oilfields to reesolve the current crisis.
No wonder the UK is in the current state when this is the level of strategic thinking coming from the Tories. CAlendars are there for a reason, and not just Advent calendars.
Your highly incomplete and hopelessly biased interpretation of a commitment away from oil to other energy sources, not to mention international commitments on global warming.
It was you having the audacity to whinge about pressure on energy supplies when your useless FM and SNP leader refuses to use one of the key energy sources in Scotland
"refuses to use". I didn't know they had closed down the oil industry. And she is talking about 5-10-20 years in the future.
I think you are Suella Braverman and claim my 5 debased Henry VIII silver-plated copper shillings.
Sturgeon opposes every proposed new oil field in Scotland despite the energy they will provide
You blithering halfwitted dullard, why not given London steals all the money. Better in the ground than feeding the fat red faces of gross Tory crooks.
So Sunak didn't quite win you over yesterday, then?
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Christmas starts when Mince Pies go on sale in the supermarkets. The premium tier ones, not the crappy standard ones.
I don't think that happens, I always hope to score a year's iron rations of xmas pudding and stilton but it all just vanishes on Boxing Day. in tesco anyway.
Boxing day easter eggs are the new September christmas section in Selfridges
Mini Eggs are fine at any time starting from Boxing Day. But I found it very difficult to find them in the last couple of weeks before Easter this year.
And, for the love of god, why don't they sell short Twiglets in tubs all year round?
Not Cheddar Cheese and Pineapple on a stick?
If young ambitious MPs now calculate it's time to get off the boat then the writing is on the wall.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Primary schools are in every town and city in the UK too.
You're being as ridiculous as someone saying Christmas doesn't start until 25 December when people have Christmas Trees and Christmas songs and Christmas parties all throughout December.
Christmas season does not start either officially until December 25th, the first day of Christmas
"Christmas season" being advent. Which starts way before that. As you surely know Theresa being the daughter of a clergyman and all.
Lies. TheresaHY is the only expert we need on the Church.
It's a bit like claiming that Easter Sunday is all that it's at when the entire ritual and liturgical process toward it of Holy Week is an integral part.
Holy week may lead up to it but Easter still does not start until Easter Sunday
Which would be "Easter Season".
your exact words were "Christmas season does not start either officially until December 25th"
Which is laughable. As usual.
Christmas does not start until Christmas Day, Easter not until Easter Sunday.
However even if you said Easter Season starts with Holy Week for example, the Jubilee Season does not start properly until the lighting of the beacons on Thursday which also is the exact day of the Coronation anniversary
So Good Friday isn't a part of Easter? Christingle services are nothing to do with Christmas?
Jubliee functions up and down the country with Jubilee bunting and Jubilee festivals has nothing to do with the Jubilee?
Preposterous.
Technically not part of Easter itself no, just as Christingle services are not part of Christmas itself as the 12 days of Christmas do not start until Christmas.
However even if they were the Palace has made clear the formal Jubilee celebration does not start until Trooping of the Colour and the lighting of the beacons on Thursday, hence Thursday and Friday are the Jubilee Bank Holidays and ends with the Jubilee Pageant on Sunday afternoon.
So by Monday week the Jubilee celebrations will officially be over
Please show me where the "Palace has made clear" that schools celebrating the Jubilee this week are not a part of the Jubilee celebrations.
I very much doubt the Palace are as pigheaded and ignorant as that, and rather expect they'd encourage and welcome those celebrations instead.
The Jubilee Central weekend starts on Thursday and ends on Sunday, anything else outside that period is not part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration
You're wrong, its not a part of the Central weekend. It is a part of the Jubilee celebration, as even the Royal Family themselves are saying.
The Central weekend is the main point of it, but the Jubilee celebration spreads far either side of it. At the encouragement of the Royal Family themselves.
The Central weekend is the main Jubilee celebration ie Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. That is when the Bank Holidays are. Anything before or after that period does not come under the main central weekend Jubilee celebration therefore
Nobody said it was part of the central weekend, you introduced the term central.
We said it was a part of the Jubilee celebrations and it is. As the Royal Family, DCMS, the Guides, the Legion, Her Majesty and more have made clear.
Its absurd. HaughtyYUFD thinks he is the arbiter of everything. Declares the mother church of the Anglican Communion to have nothing to do with anything thats not England. Declares that "Christmas Season" starts only on Christmas Day despite (I assume) him sitting through so many advent sermons in Christmas season in his church. And now this:
The Jubilee Central weekend starts on Thursday and ends on Sunday, anything else outside that period is not part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration
So that Jubilee bash. The one with Tom Cruise. That was live on the telly last week. With THE QUEEN sat there. Was not "part of the main, formal Jubilee celebration"
Laughable, arrogant, absurd.
You clearly have no clue. The Church of England is only the established church in England and the Queen is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England NOT the wider Anglican communion of which the Church of England is only first amongst equals.
Advent is the lead up to Christmas NOT Christmas itself.
The horse show was not part of the Central Jubilee weekend either
None of us cares
I just enjoy watching him dig whilst pontificating against trenches.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
But if a pedestrian steps into road when the man is red and gets run over then he will be liable not the motorist?
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
But I believe jaywalking is not a crime so what will they charge you with?
I remember being spoken to by a very polite US cop (I am white) when a teen. He said "Don't you have jaywalking in your country?" I'd honestly never heard of the word. I grew up in a house on an A road. If we'd obeyed the Highway Code to the letter we'd have never got to the shop before closing time.
One thing I got extremely good at was the "Cross when it is safe to do so" bit. Walking round London with the Missus, who grew up in a village of 3k was a revelation to me. I literally had to take her by the hand every time.
EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson's deputy chief of staff David Canzini tells 60 Conservative 'red wall' MPs to prepare for general election in Autumn 2023 at a secret away day on Wednesday.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
You're doing a @HYUFD. I am using the word requirement because that's the word for it. It is a requirement. Just not a legal one. When you write "legal requirement" you acknowledge that there are non-legal requirements.
EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson's deputy chief of staff David Canzini tells 60 Conservative 'red wall' MPs to prepare for general election in Autumn 2023 at a secret away day on Wednesday.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
You're doing a @HYUFD. I am using the word requirement because that's the word for it. It is a requirement. Just not a legal one. When you write "legal requirement" you acknowledge that there are non-legal requirements.
No I don't, you're doing the HYUFD. You even said is it advisory and have been shown the answer "yes" but you're being too stubborn to back down.
You can have legal requirements, made by law, and non-legal requirements like rules and regulations set by private institutions like Ascot to take part in their activities.
Obeying the red light as a pedestrian is neither. It's not required by law, it's not required by the Highway Code, it's not required by anyone. It's explicitly advisory alone.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
This has to be the most ludicrous thread header OGH has ever posted.
He is recommending the Conservatives follow the example of Labour in 2007 when they forced out 3 times general election winner Blair in favour of Brown who then lost the 2010 general election having had to abandon his plans for an early 2007 election with Labour then losing all 3 general elections since then too?
The Tories removing 2019 general election winner Johnson in the same way Labour removed 1997, 2001 and 2005 general election winner Blair is not good advice at all I suggest
It’s a betting site so has to raise possibility of changes on mood and the narrative on coming elections.
As soon as Boris Johnson loses a VONC, Tories will get a poll bounce. Fact.
There will be ding dong big dog is gone impromptu parties.
Not in my political lifetime have I known a PM so utterly hated and his government thought of as a ragtag and bobtail joke.
It was difficult to watch Boris sitting beside Rishi as he delivered his cost of living statement yesterday as his expressions varied from bewildered, lost, dismayed and that look he gives of an angry public schoolboy who has lost an argument and wants to take his ball away
He just has to go, and his mps need to accept he is very much a dead weight over their party and the country
I do find @HYUFD's posts, constantly battling on Boris's behalf, as blind loyalty, but absolute delusion
Have I got it wrong then, I thought Rishi was against the windfall tax and Boris instructed him to do it?
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
You're doing a @HYUFD. I am using the word requirement because that's the word for it. It is a requirement. Just not a legal one. When you write "legal requirement" you acknowledge that there are non-legal requirements.
No I don't, you're doing the HYUFD. You even said is it advisory and have been shown the answer "yes" but you're being too stubborn to back down.
You can have legal requirements, made by law, and non-legal requirements like rules and regulations set by private institutions like Ascot to take part in their activities.
Obeying the red light as a pedestrian is neither. It's not required by law, it's not required by the Highway Code, it's not required by anyone. It's explicitly advisory alone.
Highway Code: Do not cross Trafford Council: You must not cross
You are required not to cross when the little man is red. It has no legal basis and hence is advisory only.
You would think in a spot where your integrity is being questioned, you would want the mechanisms in place to show you have nothing to hide, not the opposite.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
You're doing a @HYUFD. I am using the word requirement because that's the word for it. It is a requirement. Just not a legal one. When you write "legal requirement" you acknowledge that there are non-legal requirements.
No I don't, you're doing the HYUFD. You even said is it advisory and have been shown the answer "yes" but you're being too stubborn to back down.
You can have legal requirements, made by law, and non-legal requirements like rules and regulations set by private institutions like Ascot to take part in their activities.
Obeying the red light as a pedestrian is neither. It's not required by law, it's not required by the Highway Code, it's not required by anyone. It's explicitly advisory alone.
Highway Code: Do not cross Trafford Council: You must not cross
You are required not to cross when the little man is red. It has no legal basis and hence is advisory only.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
You're doing a @HYUFD. I am using the word requirement because that's the word for it. It is a requirement. Just not a legal one. When you write "legal requirement" you acknowledge that there are non-legal requirements.
No I don't, you're doing the HYUFD. You even said is it advisory and have been shown the answer "yes" but you're being too stubborn to back down.
You can have legal requirements, made by law, and non-legal requirements like rules and regulations set by private institutions like Ascot to take part in their activities.
Obeying the red light as a pedestrian is neither. It's not required by law, it's not required by the Highway Code, it's not required by anyone. It's explicitly advisory alone.
Highway Code: Do not cross Trafford Council: You must not cross
You are required not to cross when the little man is red. It has no legal basis and hence is advisory only.
So we have an advisory requirement?
May I introduce you to the past two years of lawmaking.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
You would think in a spot where your integrity is being questioned, you would want the mechanisms in place to show you have nothing to hide, not the opposite.
Having just "got away with it" BoZo doesn't want to run that risk again...
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
You're doing a @HYUFD. I am using the word requirement because that's the word for it. It is a requirement. Just not a legal one. When you write "legal requirement" you acknowledge that there are non-legal requirements.
No I don't, you're doing the HYUFD. You even said is it advisory and have been shown the answer "yes" but you're being too stubborn to back down.
You can have legal requirements, made by law, and non-legal requirements like rules and regulations set by private institutions like Ascot to take part in their activities.
Obeying the red light as a pedestrian is neither. It's not required by law, it's not required by the Highway Code, it's not required by anyone. It's explicitly advisory alone.
Highway Code: Do not cross Trafford Council: You must not cross
You are required not to cross when the little man is red. It has no legal basis and hence is advisory only.
Highway Code says "do not" is advisory, not a requirement.
Trafford Council have no authority to set requirements any more than authorities claiming that 1 hours exercise was a requirement.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
The Standard has been told that six MPs have privately sent no confidence letters but have not gone public https://bit.ly/3LTVKwM
It doesn't make it clear if those were letter already in prior to this week or are post report.
It wouldn’t surprise me if vote of no confidence just happened over the next week, needing the votes to win in bag is off the table for dozens of them now if secure in their own minds to ask their colleagues, are we’re slumping to electoral disaster under him or you actually think he can turn it round and win?
HOWEVER, sorry to spoil pendant day, but I learnt something new, Lady thatcher was not vonked, so was challenged by stalking horses. First of all a very wet wet from Wales, who was defeated, and then by a former cabinet minister famous for having a poncy haircut, who she nearly defeated but fail short so resigned without losing in second round due to a cabinet revolt.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
The way I see it requirements have consequences for breaking them. So you could be barred access to Ascot, or denied a qualification, if you did not meet the requirements.
What consequence is there to a pedestrian who uses their discretion to cross when the red man is showing when there is no traffic and it is safe to do so? Absolutely none at all, even if the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or the leader of Trafford Council was standing there watching you.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe, I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Ironic really given the cost of fuel. Complete waste of expensive energy.
*checks*
And "every town and city in the UK" appears to be demonstrably untrue, on a quick google check.
Given the SNP had ruled out new oil fields in Scotland don't you Nationalists dare have the cheek to complain about lack of energy!!
You really do need to do your homework. Oil fields are not a devolved matter. It was HMG that ruled it out (but have now U-turned). We would have been in a better position energy wise if HMG had been more supportive of renewables.
The UK has amongst the highest percentage of renewable in the developed world, it is however Sturgeon who has ruled out new oil fields
And Ms S is pointing out the blindingly obvious - that it will take too long to develop new oilfields to reesolve the current crisis.
No wonder the UK is in the current state when this is the level of strategic thinking coming from the Tories. CAlendars are there for a reason, and not just Advent calendars.
Your highly incomplete and hopelessly biased interpretation of a commitment away from oil to other energy sources, not to mention international commitments on global warming.
It was you having the audacity to whinge about pressure on energy supplies when your useless FM and SNP leader refuses to use one of the key energy sources in Scotland
"refuses to use". I didn't know they had closed down the oil industry. And she is talking about 5-10-20 years in the future.
I think you are Suella Braverman and claim my 5 debased Henry VIII silver-plated copper shillings.
Sturgeon opposes every proposed new oil field in Scotland despite the energy they will provide
You blithering halfwitted dullard, why not given London steals all the money. Better in the ground than feeding the fat red faces of gross Tory crooks.
I see the love child of the village idiot and Father Jack has decided to grace us with his whisky saturated presence
Sweaty red faced gammony Little Englander appears from under his rock. PS: Given how thick you are , message is F**K Off arsehole
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
You would think in a spot where your integrity is being questioned, you would want the mechanisms in place to show you have nothing to hide, not the opposite.
The Standard has been told that six MPs have privately sent no confidence letters but have not gone public https://bit.ly/3LTVKwM
It doesn't make it clear if those were letter already in prior to this week or are post report.
It wouldn’t surprise me if vote of no confidence just happened over the next week, needing the votes to win in bag is off the table for dozens of them now if secure in their own minds to ask their colleagues, are we’re slumping to electoral disaster under him or you actually think he can turn it round and win?
HOWEVER, sorry to spoil pendant day, but I learnt something new, Lady thatcher was not vonked, so was challenged by stalking horses. First of all a very wet wet from Wales, who was defeated, and then by a former cabinet minister famous for having a poncy haircut, who she nearly defeated but fail short so resigned without losing in second round due to a cabinet revolt.
Yes - and she could have won in the first round, with a better campaign. Bit more tea room glad handing, plus mobilising the local associations. Who were on her side, still.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
"The Highway Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules!"
You would think in a spot where your integrity is being questioned, you would want the mechanisms in place to show you have nothing to hide, not the opposite.
That only works if you have nothing to hide.
Ah the nothing to hide fallacy. Been a while since that one got an airing.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Ironic really given the cost of fuel. Complete waste of expensive energy.
*checks*
And "every town and city in the UK" appears to be demonstrably untrue, on a quick google check.
Given the SNP had ruled out new oil fields in Scotland don't you Nationalists dare have the cheek to complain about lack of energy!!
You really do need to do your homework. Oil fields are not a devolved matter. It was HMG that ruled it out (but have now U-turned). We would have been in a better position energy wise if HMG had been more supportive of renewables.
The UK has amongst the highest percentage of renewable in the developed world, it is however Sturgeon who has ruled out new oil fields
And Ms S is pointing out the blindingly obvious - that it will take too long to develop new oilfields to reesolve the current crisis.
No wonder the UK is in the current state when this is the level of strategic thinking coming from the Tories. CAlendars are there for a reason, and not just Advent calendars.
Your highly incomplete and hopelessly biased interpretation of a commitment away from oil to other energy sources, not to mention international commitments on global warming.
It was you having the audacity to whinge about pressure on energy supplies when your useless FM and SNP leader refuses to use one of the key energy sources in Scotland
"refuses to use". I didn't know they had closed down the oil industry. And she is talking about 5-10-20 years in the future.
I think you are Suella Braverman and claim my 5 debased Henry VIII silver-plated copper shillings.
Sturgeon opposes every proposed new oil field in Scotland despite the energy they will provide
True. So how is wanting to stop new oil expansion remotely what you said which is that she "refuses to use" oil?
You do understand that words matter. You can't guff any old nonsense without it being pointed out and then laughed at when you keep digging.
It was Carnyx who complained the beacons were 'a complete waste of fuel' when it is Sturgeon who opposes the new Scottish oil fields which can provide extra fuel
This has to be the most ludicrous thread header OGH has ever posted.
He is recommending the Conservatives follow the example of Labour in 2007 when they forced out 3 times general election winner Blair in favour of Brown who then lost the 2010 general election having had to abandon his plans for an early 2007 election with Labour then losing all 3 general elections since then too?
The Tories removing 2019 general election winner Johnson in the same way Labour removed 1997, 2001 and 2005 general election winner Blair is not good advice at all I suggest
It’s a betting site so has to raise possibility of changes on mood and the narrative on coming elections.
As soon as Boris Johnson loses a VONC, Tories will get a poll bounce. Fact.
There will be ding dong big dog is gone impromptu parties.
Not in my political lifetime have I known a PM so utterly hated and his government thought of as a ragtag and bobtail joke.
It was difficult to watch Boris sitting beside Rishi as he delivered his cost of living statement yesterday as his expressions varied from bewildered, lost, dismayed and that look he gives of an angry public schoolboy who has lost an argument and wants to take his ball away
He just has to go, and his mps need to accept he is very much a dead weight over their party and the country
I do find @HYUFD's posts, constantly battling on Boris's behalf, as blind loyalty, but absolute delusion
Have I got it wrong then, I thought Rishi was against the windfall tax and Boris instructed him to do it?
Tbh, I thought Boris was trying to wind up the Labour front bench during Rishi's speech.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
Its not a requirement though.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
Yes. They are required to do so but it is not a legal requirement. As I said you are conflating the two. Otherwise why would you (and @kamski who must be chuckling over this) write "legal requirement" if all requirements are legal?
I write legal requirement because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "must" and "must not"
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
You're doing a @HYUFD. I am using the word requirement because that's the word for it. It is a requirement. Just not a legal one. When you write "legal requirement" you acknowledge that there are non-legal requirements.
No I don't, you're doing the HYUFD. You even said is it advisory and have been shown the answer "yes" but you're being too stubborn to back down.
You can have legal requirements, made by law, and non-legal requirements like rules and regulations set by private institutions like Ascot to take part in their activities.
Obeying the red light as a pedestrian is neither. It's not required by law, it's not required by the Highway Code, it's not required by anyone. It's explicitly advisory alone.
"Doing the HYUFD". How the language evolves, in real time, like covid-19 or melanism in moths.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is behind a push to delay sanctions on all Russian oil delivered via pipelines. Initially only Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic were being offered an exemption. But spotting an opportunity, Berlin has asked for it apply to all EU states.
EU source tells me: ‘Initially it was about giving Viktor Orban space, but now Germany has seen it as an opportunity to help itself. Germany has pushed for this… to narrow the scope of the sanctions on Russia.’
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
A requirement without a sanction is an obvious absurdity.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
You're not requiring it then.
Of course there can be sanctions, if it is a requirement. OGH, RCS and the PB Moderators require we follow their site rules here, if we don't, we can be banned. They require we follow their rules, in exchange for use of the site.
Ascot require gentleman's attire, if you don't meet their requirements, you can be denied access. They require the correct attire, in exchange for admission etc
Private organisations can have private requirements, but if there's nothing behind it, then its not required. If you're only advising I eat healthy, you're not requiring it. If you're saying "eat healthy and I'll give you £100" then you're requiring I eat healthy in exchange for £100.
- Buy a duck. - buy some Chinese pancakes - buy some hoisin sauce. - Throw away any giblets etc (unless you want to use them in another dish) - Couple of oranges, lemons etc. Chop the peel off them with a sharp knife. Ram them up the ducks arse until it is full. - Score the skin on the outside - Rub salt in, all over. - Oven to 120C. Yes, only 120c - Put the duck in a roasting tin. put it in the oven. - Watch the Dam Busters. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch the Sound Barrier. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch Ice Cold in Alex. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch The Cruel Sea. Drink beer. - Duck is ready
Scrape a pile of meat off the duck, serve with Chinese pancakes, hoisin sauce, thinly sliced cucumber.
If you want to do this for a Sunday lunch and you are not going out on Saturday, do the cooking up to (but not including) The Cruel Sea, in the evening. Leave in the oven overnight to cool - it will be fine. In the morning, fire up the oven, The Cruel Sea and the beer, 2 hours before you want lunch.
Christmas starts when Mince Pies go on sale in the supermarkets. The premium tier ones, not the crappy standard ones.
I don't think that happens, I always hope to score a year's iron rations of xmas pudding and stilton but it all just vanishes on Boxing Day. in tesco anyway.
Boxing day easter eggs are the new September christmas section in Selfridges
Mini Eggs are fine at any time starting from Boxing Day. But I found it very difficult to find them in the last couple of weeks before Easter this year.
And, for the love of god, why don't they sell short Twiglets in tubs all year round?
Not Cheddar Cheese and Pineapple on a stick?
They could be a special jubilee snack. Had they been invented by 1952?
Just google Jubilee Recipes. Amazing how many there are.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
A requirement without a sanction is an obvious absurdity.
There is of course a sanction for failing to obey the requirement not to cross the road when the little man is red which is to be mown down by a Nissan Cherry Turbo.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
You're not requiring it then.
Of course there can be sanctions, if it is a requirement. OGH, RCS and the PB Moderators require we follow their site rules here, if we don't, we can be banned. They require we follow their rules, in exchange for use of the site.
Ascot require gentleman's attire, if you don't meet their requirements, you can be denied access. They require the correct attire, in exchange for admission etc
Private organisations can have private requirements, but if there's nothing behind it, then its not required. If you're only advising I eat healthy, you're not requiring it. If you're saying "eat healthy and I'll give you £100" then you're requiring I eat healthy in exchange for £100.
I AM ABSOLUTELY REQUIRING IT.
I require you to eat healthily. And compared with your health, £100 is chicken feed. So I absolutely am giving you something - your good health.
- Buy a duck. - buy some Chinese pancakes - buy some hoisin sauce. - Throw away any giblets etc (unless you want to use them in another dish) - Couple of oranges, lemons etc. Chop the peel off them with a sharp knife. Ram them up the ducks arse until it is full. - Score the skin on the outside - Rub salt in, all over. - Oven to 120C. Yes, only 120c - Put the duck in a roasting tin. put it in the oven. - Watch the Dam Busters. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch the Sound Barrier. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch Ice Cold in Alex. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch The Cruel Sea. Drink beer. - Duck is ready
Scrape a pile of meat off the duck, serve with Chinese pancakes, hoisin sauce, thinly sliced cucumber.
If you want to do this for a Sunday lunch and you are not going out on Saturday, do the cooking up to (but not including) The Cruel Sea, in the evening. Leave in the oven overnight to cool - it will be fine. In the morning, fire up the oven, The Cruel Sea and the beer, 2 hours before you want lunch.
How much of a big deal do people think the Jubilee celebrations will be?
It's possible that they will act to draw a line under the whole affair, a forgiveness of past sins, and a fresh start.
My 4 year old son had his playgroup jubilee party ("for the Queen") yesterday. He was pretty dispapointed that the Queen didn't bother to turn up; I think he might now be a republican
More seriously, I think the CoL situation might limit what people want to do. But then, I was sceptical of there being much fuss for the last jubilee and that turned out to be a fairly big deal.
For me it will be no deal at all, totally ignored.
We had booked a narrowboat holiday before realising it meant leaving home, where the jubilee is being ignored, and going to Middle England, where we fear it will be all around us. 😱
Haven't seen a single Union Flag. Apart from the giant one all over the front of the UKG HQ near Waverley Station. But that is always there.
We have been travelling throughout the West Highlands during the past three weeks. Nowhere was there any evidence of the forthcoming jubilee.
The Jubilee doesn't start until Thursday with the beacon lighting in towns and cities across the UK, including Scotland
The Jubilee began weeks ago in Primary Schools at the very least and has reached a crescendo this week.
This week we've had our kids come home with union flags they'd painted at school, they had a "street party" in the playground on Wednesday, and a Jubilee Ball after school yesterday. The school is completely bedecked in flags, bunting and pictures of the Queen.
So what, the Jubilee still does not officially start until Thursday when the beacons are lit whatever schools may be doing
Pish posh, what the schools are doing has been officially organised and I bet there are far more people involved with primary schools (and I bet secondary are doing similar) as are involved with beacons.
Thursday may be the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, but plenty of Jubilee stuff is already underway. I'd have thought you'd be happy with that, but I guess you'd rather have a stick somewhere uncomfortable instead.
Beacons are being lit in every town and city in the UK. Primary school celebrations are mainly for them and their parents
Ironic really given the cost of fuel. Complete waste of expensive energy.
*checks*
And "every town and city in the UK" appears to be demonstrably untrue, on a quick google check.
Given the SNP had ruled out new oil fields in Scotland don't you Nationalists dare have the cheek to complain about lack of energy!!
You really do need to do your homework. Oil fields are not a devolved matter. It was HMG that ruled it out (but have now U-turned). We would have been in a better position energy wise if HMG had been more supportive of renewables.
The UK has amongst the highest percentage of renewable in the developed world, it is however Sturgeon who has ruled out new oil fields
And Ms S is pointing out the blindingly obvious - that it will take too long to develop new oilfields to reesolve the current crisis.
No wonder the UK is in the current state when this is the level of strategic thinking coming from the Tories. CAlendars are there for a reason, and not just Advent calendars.
Your highly incomplete and hopelessly biased interpretation of a commitment away from oil to other energy sources, not to mention international commitments on global warming.
It was you having the audacity to whinge about pressure on energy supplies when your useless FM and SNP leader refuses to use one of the key energy sources in Scotland
"refuses to use". I didn't know they had closed down the oil industry. And she is talking about 5-10-20 years in the future.
I think you are Suella Braverman and claim my 5 debased Henry VIII silver-plated copper shillings.
Sturgeon opposes every proposed new oil field in Scotland despite the energy they will provide
You blithering halfwitted dullard, why not given London steals all the money. Better in the ground than feeding the fat red faces of gross Tory crooks.
I see the love child of the village idiot and Father Jack has decided to grace us with his whisky saturated presence
Sweaty red faced gammony Little Englander appears from under his rock. PS: Given how thick you are , message is F**K Off arsehole
Your angry abusive posts are further evidence of your psychological challenges. You really need help, particularly with your psychological projection. For one thing, I may be of mixed race, so why assume I am "gammony"?
I can imagine how you might appear, though, based on your posts. Let me use a little deduction theory. My guess is you are very gammony, ( a Little Scotlander, so why not?), quite short, about 5'6''? Definitely overweight, borderline obese with clinging unfashionable clothes and a propensity to wear comfortable shoes that look like Cornish pasties. Your long suffering wife is for ever telling you off for swearing at the television, because the neighbours in the adjoining bungalow might hear you. You are angry at life because you are not exactly a success materially, or anything else for that matter. You have no qualifications, though you like to tell people you have "been to the university of life!"
How am I doing? Go on hit me with your best razor sharp wit, but try for once to use an insult that doesn't make you sound as thick as you accuse others (all of whom are far more intelligent than you are) of. Go on have a go!
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
You're not requiring it then.
Of course there can be sanctions, if it is a requirement. OGH, RCS and the PB Moderators require we follow their site rules here, if we don't, we can be banned. They require we follow their rules, in exchange for use of the site.
Ascot require gentleman's attire, if you don't meet their requirements, you can be denied access. They require the correct attire, in exchange for admission etc
Private organisations can have private requirements, but if there's nothing behind it, then its not required. If you're only advising I eat healthy, you're not requiring it. If you're saying "eat healthy and I'll give you £100" then you're requiring I eat healthy in exchange for £100.
I AM ABSOLUTELY REQUIRING IT.
I require you to eat healthily. And compared with your health, £100 is chicken feed. So I absolutely am giving you something - your good health.
You've absolutely jumped the shark. That's not a requirement, and you even said is "do not" advisory when they explicitly say "do not" is advice and not a requirement.
However, you've outlasted me, as I need to get off this site. So if you want to get the last word in, you can, and you can claim that as a Pyrrhic Victory if you want. Well done, you have more endurance. But its advice, it isn't a requirement.
THis tweet of DH's (and the point made by Cyclefree below it) is also well worth a look - and all the more startling in a way given Mr J's famous regard for hospital infection control protocols.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
You're not requiring it then.
Of course there can be sanctions, if it is a requirement. OGH, RCS and the PB Moderators require we follow their site rules here, if we don't, we can be banned. They require we follow their rules, in exchange for use of the site.
Ascot require gentleman's attire, if you don't meet their requirements, you can be denied access. They require the correct attire, in exchange for admission etc
Private organisations can have private requirements, but if there's nothing behind it, then its not required. If you're only advising I eat healthy, you're not requiring it. If you're saying "eat healthy and I'll give you £100" then you're requiring I eat healthy in exchange for £100.
I AM ABSOLUTELY REQUIRING IT.
I require you to eat healthily. And compared with your health, £100 is chicken feed. So I absolutely am giving you something - your good health.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
You're not requiring it then.
Of course there can be sanctions, if it is a requirement. OGH, RCS and the PB Moderators require we follow their site rules here, if we don't, we can be banned. They require we follow their rules, in exchange for use of the site.
Ascot require gentleman's attire, if you don't meet their requirements, you can be denied access. They require the correct attire, in exchange for admission etc
Private organisations can have private requirements, but if there's nothing behind it, then its not required. If you're only advising I eat healthy, you're not requiring it. If you're saying "eat healthy and I'll give you £100" then you're requiring I eat healthy in exchange for £100.
I AM ABSOLUTELY REQUIRING IT.
I require you to eat healthily. And compared with your health, £100 is chicken feed. So I absolutely am giving you something - your good health.
You've absolutely jumped the shark. That's not a requirement, and you even said is "do not" advisory when they explicitly say "do not" is advice and not a requirement.
However, you've outlasted me, as I need to get off this site. So if you want to get the last word in, you can, and you can claim that as a Pyrrhic Victory if you want. Well done, you have more endurance. But its advice, it isn't a requirement.
Just a thought about whether letters could go in to get rid of Boris.
I'm a traditional Tory voter who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could just about stomach all the rubbish that has gone on lately because I saw the alternative as being worse. But is it really worse now? The Tories have turned into Labour splashing the cash indiscriminately. They are going to give me (and millions of others) a cash handout and then up my taxes to pay for it. That is not the Conservative way. That is classic Labour policy.
I have now turned. The Tories will not get my vote with Boris in charge as they are basically Labour in disguise. I'm obviously not going to vote Labour but the lack of my vote makes it far more likely others will get in. We have a council by-election coming up soon. I may just give a vote to the Greens for their local sustainable approach.
Now, if how I feel is how Tory MPs feel then maybe they might just send in their letters (e.g. John Redwood). It might not be partygate but instead the transformation of the Tory Party into the Labour Party.
I agree with everything you wrote, but couldn't vote for the Greens as they are Watermelons that are almost as bad as Corbyn's Labour.
The only ones I could just about stomach are the Lib Dems, but their NIMBYism puts me off. Other than that, who is a socially liberal, dry as dust conservative supposed to vote for?
You call yourself a 'social liberal' but you voted for the Brexit Party in 2019 and support sending people to Rwanda. You are an extreme reactionary who makes HYUFD look very moderate.
I cast a protest vote in 2019 in part to get rid of an authoritarian anti-immigration PM that I despised. The Brexit Party were no more than a tool for that as far as I was concerned, it also ousted Nigel Farage from the European Parliament so another win there.
I am not a reactionary, I am very pro-immigration and am happy to have a liberalised immigration system that is fair to all regardless of where in the planet they were born, or what the colour of their skin is, rather than prioritising primarily white Europeans over the rest of the planet.
I hate that there is no better solution than the Rwanda one, but the Channel is not safe to cross via people smugglers and it causes misery and drownings and every other policy has failed to fix that, offshore relocation works. It halted such movements with Australia, which has more people proportionately immigrating than the UK does.
I'd be quite happy to have an Australian-style system where that means twice as many people arrive proportionately as do now, but those people are fairly able to get visas from around the world, and people don't drown in the English Channel getting here.
That's not what the reactionaries want, or what they mean by Australian-style.
Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK
People fleeing Afghanistan were the largest group among migrants crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022.
Afghans made up one in four people making the risky journey, following the Taliban's return to power last summer.
New figures show almost as many Afghans crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year (1,094) as in the whole of 2021 (1,323).
In nine out of ten cases over the last year, people fleeing Afghanistan were granted refugee status.
I don't see how Australian style points systems affects this, unless there's a "refugee" box you can tick on the visa application.
Most of the Channel crossers are granted refugee/asylum status because they have destroyed their passports and any ID documents (“Oh I lost them in Belarus”). We have no choice but to accept them
It looks like Patel’s Rwanda plan is going to fail, the govt haven’t got the spine to do anything serious (which means flying ALL OF THEM to Rwanda for a few months) and we simply have to tolerate 40-100,000 crossing the Channel every year and letting them stay. At least they are the hardier and more enterprising, given that they have made it all the way to Calais and then successfully crossed. It is Darwinian selection at work
I bet there is massive overlap between people who get worked up about migrant crossings and people who get worked up about cyclists running red lights. Both reflect anger at people breaking the rules (without wondering whether the rules are fair or sensible) and fear that someone is gaining some advantage that isn't available to them. In both cases I would tend to step back and take a more balanced view. In the case of the migrants, think about what they are escaping from and what they these highly motivated people who really want to be here could add to our economy. In the case of the cyclists, think about how they are aiding the flow of traffic. But of course some people just enjoy the visceral thrill of the gut rage too much to surrender to reason.
Absurd comparison. People who run red lights are dicks 94.5% of the time and putting themselves and others in danger. I appreciate that it might be hugely challenging to work out what possible reason there could be for wanting people to stop at red lights, or indeed whether such a rule is "fair or sensible", but I'm sure with a little bit of contemplation you'll get there.
Morning all.
On the other hand, pedestrians aren't required to stop at red lights in the UK, which you must find extremely puzzling.
Yes they are. They are required to stop when the little man is red. When it is green they can go.
Another completely befuddling rule.
No they aren't. It is not a legal requirement in the UK. Which is why you will see British people very often crossing when the man is red, if they think it's safe to do so.
You do seem quite confused.
They are required to stop. At the little man when he is red.
Here's Trafford Council telling you that when you see the red man symbol "You must not cross".
I'm guessing Trafford council is not alone in this requirement. Why here's the Highway Code saying: "Do not cross" when the little man is red.
You'll get the hang of it all soon I have no doubt.
Have you forgotten all about the importance in the difference between guidance and law?
Much of what the Highway Code says is guidance, the law is when it uses the word "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Cyclists and cars must not cross on red, but for pedestrians it doesn't say must not.
Pedestrians not crossing on red is as much the law as only doing 1 hour of exercise.
I couldn't agree more. I never said it was the law; I said it was a requirement.
But its not a requirement, its guidance.
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction Wording of The Highway Code Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
You are conflating "requirement" with "legal requirement". It is a requirement but not a legal requirement.
What is a non-legal requirement?
Gentlemen's Dress Code
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include: A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties) A black or grey top hat Black shoes worn with socks
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Oh. Now you change the terms of enquiry. But what if there is an elephant hang-gliding at the time?
You're the one trying to change it. The only way something becomes a requirement is if somebody or some institution or legal authority requires it.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
As I said to @Applicant - it is a requirement but has no legal standing so is advisory only.
There's no such thing as an advisory requirement. That's an oxymoron.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
As you yourself noted earlier, we have been spending the past two years in an environment where requirements have no authority in law.
No, we haven't.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
You can absolutely have non-legal requirements. I require that henceforth when you go out shopping you must wear a clown's suit. That is my requirement of you. It's not advisory. It is me requiring you to do something and, as I am some way from you I believe I am relying on you turning yourself into the police if you do not do as I require.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
Did you not read the post you replied to. Here is what I said again: You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things.
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
And as I said it is therefore a requirement, albeit an advisory one. And there is no sanction if you don't wear a clown suit, just that I require you to do so. How on earth could there be a sanction? You're losing the plot.
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
You're not requiring it then.
Of course there can be sanctions, if it is a requirement. OGH, RCS and the PB Moderators require we follow their site rules here, if we don't, we can be banned. They require we follow their rules, in exchange for use of the site.
Ascot require gentleman's attire, if you don't meet their requirements, you can be denied access. They require the correct attire, in exchange for admission etc
Private organisations can have private requirements, but if there's nothing behind it, then its not required. If you're only advising I eat healthy, you're not requiring it. If you're saying "eat healthy and I'll give you £100" then you're requiring I eat healthy in exchange for £100.
I AM ABSOLUTELY REQUIRING IT.
I require you to eat healthily. And compared with your health, £100 is chicken feed. So I absolutely am giving you something - your good health.
- Buy a duck. - buy some Chinese pancakes - buy some hoisin sauce. - Throw away any giblets etc (unless you want to use them in another dish) - Couple of oranges, lemons etc. Chop the peel off them with a sharp knife. Ram them up the ducks arse until it is full. - Score the skin on the outside - Rub salt in, all over. - Oven to 120C. Yes, only 120c - Put the duck in a roasting tin. put it in the oven. - Watch the Dam Busters. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch the Sound Barrier. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch Ice Cold in Alex. Drink beer. - Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back - Watch The Cruel Sea. Drink beer. - Duck is ready
Scrape a pile of meat off the duck, serve with Chinese pancakes, hoisin sauce, thinly sliced cucumber.
If you want to do this for a Sunday lunch and you are not going out on Saturday, do the cooking up to (but not including) The Cruel Sea, in the evening. Leave in the oven overnight to cool - it will be fine. In the morning, fire up the oven, The Cruel Sea and the beer, 2 hours before you want lunch.
Isn’t the watering down of the ministerial code at this particular point particularly tone death? Or has Johnson just become emboldened with that he can get away with
Isn’t the watering down of the ministerial code at this particular point particularly tone death? Or has Johnson just become emboldened with that he can get away with
Comments
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/18704273/richard-osman-pointless-replacements-revealed/
Edit: and you are not quite right either because eg Trafford Council says "YOU MUST NOT" but that is not the law.
Obvs at Angel it can use skis.
Advent is the lead up to Christmas NOT Christmas itself.
The horse show was not part of the Central Jubilee weekend either, merely the lead up to it
You're required to follow the law. You're required to do whatever the Highway Code says you must or must not do.
You're not required to do whatever the Highway Code says you should or should not do. You're allowed to use your own judgement, its good advice to follow what the Highway Code advises, but its not required.
It literally says in the introduction to the Highway Code itself that "do not" is advisory but "must not" is a legal requirement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction
Wording of The Highway Code
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
It says "do not" rather than "must not" so the Highway Code deems that to be "advisory" and not a legal requirement.
He said "Don't you have jaywalking in your country?"
I'd honestly never heard of the word.
I grew up in a house on an A road. If we'd obeyed the Highway Code to the letter we'd have never got to the shop before closing time.
The only thing illegal AFAICS in the Highway Code for Pedestrians is not to hang onto a moving vehicle ("MUST NOT").
An inquest into the death of a railway worker will not examine if she was infected with Covid by a passenger who allegedly spat at her. Belly Mujinga, 47, died in 2020 after she was reportedly coughed on and spat at by a man known as AB.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-61603434
CPS review - “As part of this review, we studied enhanced CCTV, forensic materials and witness statements. CCTV and witness evidence was insufficiently clear and consistent to substantiate allegations of deliberate coughing or spitting".
The three who have publicly called for him to go but haven't sent letters are the ones who have me head scratching.
A minute ago you said The Highway Code says "do not cross". Is that advisory? It sounds to me like a requirement but with no legal force (otherwise they would have said "you must not cross").
The answer is in the Introduction to the Highway Code, unambiguously yes it is advisory. It literally says "advisory wording such as ... do not"
Do not is advisory, the Highway Code says so in its own introduction. So, pedestrians are not required to follow the lights but they are advised to do so.
I write "advisory" because that is the term that the Highway Code uses for "do not" and other bits that are explicitly advisory.
Nowhere that I can see does the word requirement appear other than where it says legal requirement. The advisory elements are not required, any more than 1 hour a day of exercise was a required limit. Advice is not a requirement.
I nearly went for one the other day when there was talk of eliminating our copper coins and wanted to point out they are now steel, but I resisted.
Damn, I didn't, I'm just late.
Gentlemen are kindly reminded that it is a requirement to wear either black, grey or navy morning dress which must include:
A waistcoat and tie (no cravats or bow ties)
A black or grey top hat
Black shoes worn with socks
https://www.ascot.com/what-to-wear/royal-ascot/royal-enclosure/gentlemen
Walking round London with the Missus, who grew up in a village of 3k was a revelation to me.
I literally had to take her by the hand every time.
More in today's Chopper's Politics Newsletter. 👇👇
Sign up: http://telegraph.co.uk/politicsnewsletter https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1530170012245413888/photo/1
That doesn't apply to pedestrian crossings on public streets.
Boris Johnson has today watered down the ministerial code, and blocked moves to grant his ethics advisor the power to launch his own investigations.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-waters-down-ethics-27083430
You can have legal requirements, made by law, and non-legal requirements like rules and regulations set by private institutions like Ascot to take part in their activities.
Obeying the red light as a pedestrian is neither. It's not required by law, it's not required by the Highway Code, it's not required by anyone. It's explicitly advisory alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYzdMWM6Ir4
Trafford Council: You must not cross
You are required not to cross when the little man is red. It has no legal basis and hence is advisory only.
You would think in a spot where your integrity is being questioned, you would want the mechanisms in place to show you have nothing to hide, not the opposite.
Parliament sets legal requirements. Cars and cyclists following lights is one.
Private institutions set private requirements. Gentleman's attire is one.
Advice is just advisory and not a requirement. Pedestrians are neither legally nor privately required to follow the lights, they're just advised to do so.
Trafford Council have no authority to set requirements any more than authorities claiming that 1 hours exercise was a requirement.
Must not is a requirement, due to the law. Do not is not, it is advisory.
HOWEVER, sorry to spoil pendant day, but I learnt something new, Lady thatcher was not vonked, so was challenged by stalking horses. First of all a very wet wet from Wales, who was defeated, and then by a former cabinet minister famous for having a poncy haircut, who she nearly defeated but fail short so resigned without losing in second round due to a cabinet revolt.
Guidance isn't a requirement, it is advisory and that was always the case, which is why anyone who's tried to force guidance into a requirement has failed to do so.
You can have private requirements, or legal requirements, but you can't have advisory requirements, that is an oxymoron because the two mean very different things. If you only advise that someone does or does not do something, then you are not requiring them to do or do not do it.
What consequence is there to a pedestrian who uses their discretion to cross when the red man is showing when there is no traffic and it is safe to do so? Absolutely none at all, even if the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or the leader of Trafford Council was standing there watching you.
Alternatively, my requirement is not a legal requirement.
PS: Given how thick you are , message is F**K Off arsehole
You can require of me that I wear a clown suit as a private requirement between you and me. That's your choice if you choose to require that and if I fail to do that, you may choose not to whatever you offer me in exchange for doing so.
But that's not the case with red lights for pedestrians. The highway code quite explicitly "advises" that people "do not" cross on the red light, it does not require it. Nobody else has the authority to "require" it, so that's the end of the matter, it isn't a requirement.
EU source tells me: ‘Initially it was about giving Viktor Orban space, but now Germany has seen it as an opportunity to help itself. Germany has pushed for this… to narrow the scope of the sanctions on Russia.’
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1530164125460058112
I have a new requirement: that you only eat healthily. You can choose to ignore it, fair enough. I am requiring that you only eat healthily because I believe it will have a beneficial effect on your life. So it is also advice.
Of course there can be sanctions, if it is a requirement. OGH, RCS and the PB Moderators require we follow their site rules here, if we don't, we can be banned. They require we follow their rules, in exchange for use of the site.
Ascot require gentleman's attire, if you don't meet their requirements, you can be denied access. They require the correct attire, in exchange for admission etc
Private organisations can have private requirements, but if there's nothing behind it, then its not required. If you're only advising I eat healthy, you're not requiring it. If you're saying "eat healthy and I'll give you £100" then you're requiring I eat healthy in exchange for £100.
Crispy duck recipe.
- Buy a duck.
- buy some Chinese pancakes
- buy some hoisin sauce.
- Throw away any giblets etc (unless you want to use them in another dish)
- Couple of oranges, lemons etc. Chop the peel off them with a sharp knife. Ram them up the ducks arse until it is full.
- Score the skin on the outside
- Rub salt in, all over.
- Oven to 120C. Yes, only 120c
- Put the duck in a roasting tin. put it in the oven.
- Watch the Dam Busters. Drink beer.
- Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back
- Watch the Sound Barrier. Drink beer.
- Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back
- Watch Ice Cold in Alex. Drink beer.
- Pour the fat/gravy out of tray. Put the duck back
- Watch The Cruel Sea. Drink beer.
- Duck is ready
Scrape a pile of meat off the duck, serve with Chinese pancakes, hoisin sauce, thinly sliced cucumber.
If you want to do this for a Sunday lunch and you are not going out on Saturday, do the cooking up to (but not including) The Cruel Sea, in the evening. Leave in the oven overnight to cool - it will be fine. In the morning, fire up the oven, The Cruel Sea and the beer, 2 hours before you want lunch.
I require you to eat healthily. And compared with your health, £100 is chicken feed. So I absolutely am giving you something - your good health.
If CCHQ keep sending MPs campaigning, and if they're hearing from voters what I'm hearing, there might well be 54 letters in before we even get to polling day.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1530181936685137923
I can imagine how you might appear, though, based on your posts. Let me use a little deduction theory. My guess is you are very gammony, ( a Little Scotlander, so why not?), quite short, about 5'6''? Definitely overweight, borderline obese with clinging unfashionable clothes and a propensity to wear comfortable shoes that look like Cornish pasties. Your long suffering wife is for ever telling you off for swearing at the television, because the neighbours in the adjoining bungalow might hear you. You are angry at life because you are not exactly a success materially, or anything else for that matter. You have no qualifications, though you like to tell people you have "been to the university of life!"
How am I doing? Go on hit me with your best razor sharp wit, but try for once to use an insult that doesn't make you sound as thick as you accuse others (all of whom are far more intelligent than you are) of. Go on have a go!
However, you've outlasted me, as I need to get off this site. So if you want to get the last word in, you can, and you can claim that as a Pyrrhic Victory if you want. Well done, you have more endurance. But its advice, it isn't a requirement.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1529964890592624640?cxt=HHwWgIC-6ce9w7sqAAAA
https://twitter.com/GermanyNATO/status/1530166800490680320
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1530185651999621120
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1530161144853368833