(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
When the campaign starts there will be tactical voting recommendations based on MRP models published by Best for Britain and no doubt others. These will be a pretty good guide for most constituencies. Other MRP models will be published during the campaign. By polling day it will be clear who the main challenger is in almost all constituencies I think.
Though different MRP polls can point in different directions!
Personally I find the Yougov more credible,.
Yes, though I suspect that during the campaign the MRPs and the tactical voting websites will tend to converge and the whole process will become self-reinforcing so that by the end of the campaign there won't be much room for doubt.
This is the sort of reasoning that might encourage the Tories to go for a January election and use Christmas to truncate the campaign.
OT - I must’ve led an incredibly sheltered life but whatever possesses anyone to want to watch the type of content that this guy has been charged with being responsible for?
My god, that beggars belief. What does anyone get from that ? How the hell did they find it on Youtube.
Mind you I did come across a video of a Howler Monkey having botfly larvae extracted from its neck on Youtube, as well as a kitten having one pulled out of its nose. Oddly therapeutic.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
When the campaign starts there will be tactical voting recommendations based on MRP models published by Best for Britain and no doubt others. These will be a pretty good guide for most constituencies. Other MRP models will be published during the campaign. By polling day it will be clear who the main challenger is in almost all constituencies I think.
Though different MRP polls can point in different directions!
Personally I find the Yougov more credible,.
Yes, though I suspect that during the campaign the MRPs and the tactical voting websites will tend to converge and the whole process will become self-reinforcing so that by the end of the campaign there won't be much room for doubt.
This is the sort of reasoning that might encourage the Tories to go for a January election and use Christmas to truncate the campaign.
Possibly, but it would be silly of the Tories to run the campaign over Christmas - just imagine - "the Tories have broken Britain, ruined the NHS, proved chaotically corrupt and incompetent and now they are going to f*ck up your Christmas as well." Not a great start to the campaign.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Interesting. In Scotland the bigger challenge is to get defence counsel. In sex cases (which is the bulk of what we do) the accused are not allowed to represent themselves so if you cannot find defence counsel the case goes off.
A friend of mine has her Sister going on trial this summer. She was tried previously in October 2022 along with two other defendants. The trial collapsed as it ran on for longer than expected as they had not allocated enough time for it. The next date they could get was nearly 2 years on. Crazy. She is not on remand but it is still hanging over her. It is mad.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Interesting. In Scotland the bigger challenge is to get defence counsel. In sex cases (which is the bulk of what we do) the accused are not allowed to represent themselves so if you cannot find defence counsel the case goes off.
A friend of mine has her Sister going on trial this summer. She was tried previously in October 2022 along with two other defendants. The trial collapsed as it ran on for longer than expected as they had not allocated enough time for it. The next date they could get was nearly 2 years on. Crazy. She is not on remand but it is still hanging over her. It is mad.
We used to have a 110 day rule in Scotland which meant that if you were in custody then your trial had to start within 110 days of you being locked up. That was extended to 140 days in 2016 when procedure was changed.
This "rule" was always diluted by "exceptional circumstances" and fell apart during Covid. People spending 18 months in custody before trial is, sadly, no longer unusual. The defence have given up trying to make a fuss about it so we go through the formalities of extending time limits at each calling of the case without objection.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Meanwhile much of the British Library's service has been down for several months because they had insufficient protection against a cyberattack.
Why exactly are they taking so long to put it back up, btw, does anyone know? Presumably they have backups?
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
My wife is an HR Manager, she sees it for the cobblers it is too, but that is exactly why they do it in her view. Same as any other training. Manual Handling, Ethics, compliance etc etc....
Yes, I may be breaking with my fellow members of the tofu eating wokerati here but I think that corporate unconscious bias training is mostly an arse covering, box ticking, exercise. It means that if an employee sues for racial discrimination the company has grounds for claiming it is not responsible. This doesn't mean that unconscious bias is not a thing, let alone conscious bias. Simply that I'm not convinced this sort of training really achieves anything, other than providing a living to the people delivering it and winding some people up unnecessarily. I think there are more effective means of achieving these goals. CR would no doubt disagree with me but I think that things like tearing down statues are much more effective as they spur a conversation around the historical drivers of discrimination that can also lead to introspection about our own attitudes and assumptions. The fact is we live in a society absolutely steeped in racism and other forms of discrimination, and while things are improving we have all been formed by this society and this history to some degree. One final thought - there are interesting tests for unconscious bias out there that I would recommend taking, just in order to know oneself better. I was relieved to find when I did it that I didn't actually harbour any subconscious bias, at least not according to the test. So that was nice.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
It isn't. Same with the church.
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
I did jury service at a central London court (not the Old Bailey) earlier this year. Every morning all attendees - jurors, barristers, witnesses etc - had to queue outside, often for 20-30 minutes whilst bags were thoroughly searched by hand one at a time. Apparently there was no budget to buy a scanner.
No idea how much a scanner costs but wouldn't be surprised if it is less than a weeks worth of extra 30 mins barristers time on public money.......the government are so desperate to cut costs they end up paying more in salaries and fees than if they invested properly.
This is my biggest gripe with the government and "Conservative" thinking generally. They have simply taken control of public spending too far, and too far away from the people actually involved. The best way to save money in public services from here is to invest, both in people and equipment.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
Though one could make the case too for Lab campaigns in Honiton or Brecon for example.
The hard part for tactical voters is knowing who to vote for. In my Tory held seat Labour came distant second, with the LDs not far behind, but there is a strong LD presence on the council, so potentially more votes. It is possible to make a case either way, but I expect a Con hold as one of their bedrock seats.
When the campaign starts there will be tactical voting recommendations based on MRP models published by Best for Britain and no doubt others. These will be a pretty good guide for most constituencies. Other MRP models will be published during the campaign. By polling day it will be clear who the main challenger is in almost all constituencies I think.
Though different MRP polls can point in different directions!
Personally I find the Yougov more credible,.
Yes, though I suspect that during the campaign the MRPs and the tactical voting websites will tend to converge and the whole process will become self-reinforcing so that by the end of the campaign there won't be much room for doubt.
This is the sort of reasoning that might encourage the Tories to go for a January election and use Christmas to truncate the campaign.
Possibly, but it would be silly of the Tories to run the campaign over Christmas - just imagine - "the Tories have broken Britain, ruined the NHS, proved chaotically corrupt and incompetent and now they are going to f*ck up your Christmas as well." Not a great start to the campaign.
Sunak strikes me as exactly the sort of person who could convince themselves a Christmas election made sense, for a too clever by half reason, while ignoring the obvious human reaction of the voters being pissed off by it.
We'll never have a greater chance of a Christmas election campaign.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
I agree with this but it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that many Brexiteers did not at least strongly imply that immigration would be less.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
The usual way, Prince Albert bought it and it has been passed down to his descendants. Which presumably meant that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha taxpayers paid for it
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Absolutely. I would say that 99.9% of the people who cited immigration as an issue for their Brexit vote wanted a tripling in net migration within five years.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
You do realise that you have just made my point for me, don't you? If the progressive parties continue to fight amongst themselves, the only winners are the Tories. The argument "they did it to me first" won't make the eventual defeat any easier to bear.
Your mind seems made up - presumably for parochial reasons - and nothing is likely to change that. However, as a former Conservative, who only wants to see this aberration of a government consigned to history, I hope that other other more level heads within Labour - and the LibDems - will take a more cooperative approach.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Well it's a view I suppose.
Probably not the majority view, but a view nonetheless.
He doesn't post often. Although I disagree with his article (effect and cause inverted), he took the time to write it, I enjoyed reading it, and I look forward to his next one. Thank you, @TopDog.
(PS @rcs1000 when are we going to get part 2 of your article, or did I miss it?)
I don't know and I don't really mind not knowing. I only 'know' who a couple of other posters are, and that's because they given their names. I quite like using pseudonyms in these circumstances; I suspect some of us have different personas on here to those we have in real life.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am actually an 80+ year old. HYUFD, though is, I suspect actually a Green voting 50 year old with a bizarre sense of humour!
Perhaps I'm mis-remembering but I thought that a while back TSE mentioned that he doesn't check @TSE notifications so use the TopDog moniker instead.
TopDog has only been around since March 23rd.
His 2nd post introduces himself eloquently. Retired journalist living in the country. Centre right, anti Johnson and Trump, Remainer. So PBs most populous grouping has an addition.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Not just galling for LibDems but also for (substantially more) Labour candidates in seats where they are second but need the LibDems to go easy.
There will be Conservative Associations across the country raising a glass to Nick Palmer for his article.
Three points on this, apart from the relative probabilities which we've argued on previous threads.
First, it takes two to tango, and I've encountered innumerable cases where LibDems and indeed Greens fought seats hard where Labour was the clear contender to beat the Tories. Examples: Uxbridge vs Boris in 2019 (the LibDem claimed only she could beat him, and got 6.3%), Portsmouth South in 2019 (where there was actually a Labour MP and the LibDem still claimed only he could beat the Tories - he got 11.4%) and indeed Broxtowe in every election that I fought from 1997 to 2010, ultimately losing by 0.7% with 16.9% voting LD and 0.8% voting Green (the Green candidate ironically joined Labour shortly afterwards). In by-elections, you sometimes get an unofficial understanding. In General Elections, it's not usually forthcoming.
Second, although tactical voting is a valid option, it's not the only way to vote. You have one chance every 4-5 years to say how you think the country should be run. It's unlikely that your vote will decide the national outcome (or even the local outcome), so you may decide you want to express a positive preference, rather than make a parochial negative choice to get rid of the current MP.
Third, if you lend your vote tactically, it gets used against your preferred party in later elections. It's absolutely SOP for the LibDems to ask for a tactical vote in a GE and then in the following local elections to say "Labour came a poor third and can't win in this area", even where the ward is actually a strong chance for Labour.
I've used tactical voting arguments myself, and I see the case for them where one can persuadably argue that one's the main challenger for the Tories. But it's not the only argument.
You do realise that you have just made my point for me, don't you? If the progressive parties continue to fight amongst themselves, the only winners are the Tories. The argument "they did it to me first" won't make the eventual defeat any easier to bear.
Your mind seems made up - presumably for parochial reasons - and nothing is likely to change that. However, as a former Conservative, who only wants to see this aberration of a government consigned to history, I hope that other other more level heads within Labour - and the LibDems - will take a more cooperative approach.
On current opinion polling, it is the split in the conservative vote between the Tories and RefUK that harms them more than splits in the progressive vote harms the progressive parties.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Absolutely. I would say that 99.9% of the people who cited immigration as an issue for their Brexit vote wanted a tripling in net migration within five years.
...and from far more exotic places than Portugal and Poland.
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
Are they funding some re-building project? How on Earth can they charge £100 to get in?
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
Are they funding some re-building project? How on Earth can they charge £100 to get in?
They can charge what people will pay, surely? That's how capitalism works.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Absolutely. I would say that 99.9% of the people who cited immigration as an issue for their Brexit vote wanted a tripling in net migration within five years.
Considering the various reasons why controlling immigration is seen as desirable (pressure on public services, pay and job security, cultural assimilation), it's not obvious that any of them are compatible with increasing numbers.
Remember the Vote Leave PPB? I'm pretty sure the promise was that granny would see a doctor faster because there wouldn't be all these people crowding the waiting room.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
I don't include my pronouns because I don't care whether people misgender me. I'm not going to take offence and I wouldn't cause a fuss about it.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
Of course, that could be because Scottish police have all but given up prosecuting theft.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Absolutely. I would say that 99.9% of the people who cited immigration as an issue for their Brexit vote wanted a tripling in net migration within five years.
...and from far more exotic places than Portugal and Poland.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have gone with "Keep Britain White".
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
Are they funding some re-building project? How on Earth can they charge £100 to get in?
They can charge what people will pay, surely? That's how capitalism works.
But they are not a capitalist enterprise, they work for us and have massive wealth. These buildings should be open to the public for free just as museums and so on are.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Absolutely. I would say that 99.9% of the people who cited immigration as an issue for their Brexit vote wanted a tripling in net migration within five years.
Considering the various reasons why controlling immigration is seen as desirable (pressure on public services, pay and job security, cultural assimilation), it's not obvious that any of them are compatible with increasing numbers.
Remember the Vote Leave PPB? I'm pretty sure the promise was that granny would see a doctor faster because there wouldn't be all these people crowding the waiting room.
FF43 is right though. Brexit means we can control immigration. We just don't. Granted, it takes a lot of political effort to overcome the institutional preference for immigration. But this lot don't appear to be even trying.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us.
It should be open to all on principle.
Why should someone be allowed private property? Oh, I wonder.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us.
It should be open to all on principle.
Why should someone be allowed private property? Oh, I wonder.
Do you not think it a touch excessive that they have so many private properties? That they can sell to make money from?
Have they earned them? Worked hard to get them? No. They are literally there by birth.
But yes, feel free to put words in my mouth and argue a point I didn't make. As usual.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
Of course, that could be because Scottish police have all but given up prosecuting theft.
20 odd years ago the High Court was wall to wall drugs with the occasional murder for light relief. Now its wall to wall sex. I hope I am around when we get to what is laughingly called rock and roll. So many crimes unpunished.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us.
It should be open to all on principle.
Why should someone be allowed private property? Oh, I wonder.
Do you not think it a touch excessive that they have so many private properties? That they can sell to make money from?
Have they earned them? Worked hard to get them? No. They are literally there by birth.
But yes, feel free to put words in my mouth and argue a point I didn't make. As usual.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You are clearly saying that he should not be allowed to own private property as "they work for us".
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
Wow. Well done you.
And I suppose you come to PB to restore your faith in the essential goodness of mankind.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It's depressing that discussion of this crime so often devolves to "he said, she said" when in almost every other sphere of life (theft for example) we wouldn't question someone's testimony unless there were specific grounds to do so.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us.
It should be open to all on principle.
Why should someone be allowed private property? Oh, I wonder.
Do you not think it a touch excessive that they have so many private properties? That they can sell to make money from?
Have they earned them? Worked hard to get them? No. They are literally there by birth.
But yes, feel free to put words in my mouth and argue a point I didn't make. As usual.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You are clearly saying that he should not be allowed to own private property as "they work for us".
An EXCESSIVE amount of private properties. Why do they need so many? I literally said above, ONE seems fine. But they have several. That they can charge for.
There is literally nothing so antithetical to this country than this setup. They have never worked a day in their lives to own these properties. They should be open to the public for free as museums and other attractions are. End of story.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Absolutely. I would say that 99.9% of the people who cited immigration as an issue for their Brexit vote wanted a tripling in net migration within five years.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us.
It should be open to all on principle.
Why should someone be allowed private property? Oh, I wonder.
Do you not think it a touch excessive that they have so many private properties? That they can sell to make money from?
Have they earned them? Worked hard to get them? No. They are literally there by birth.
But yes, feel free to put words in my mouth and argue a point I didn't make. As usual.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You are clearly saying that he should not be allowed to own private property as "they work for us".
An EXCESSIVE amount of private properties. Why do they need so many? I literally said above, ONE seems fine. But they have several. That they can charge for.
There is literally nothing so antithetical to this country than this setup. They have never worked a day in their lives to own these properties. They should be open to the public for free as museums and other attractions are. End of story.
I did not put words in your mouth. Earlier you said "Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?".
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
When I last owned a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unbelievable, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
Are they funding some re-building project? How on Earth can they charge £100 to get in?
I guess because people will pay it so they know they can.
When I last opened a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unusual, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
What is grotesque, is a family that is literally there by divine right opening a house for £100 to make a profit from during a cost of living crisis. They don't need the money. It is just pure greed.
Your comparison is laughable. Obviously - and you knew that when you made it.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
Wow. Well done you.
And I suppose you come to PB to restore your faith in the essential goodness of mankind.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
We can now refuse a Pole and allow two Indians when we could have previously allowed them but chose not to. Is that really a useful new "control"?
Which is the practical problem with Brexit. It allows us to choose things we don't want while preventing what we do want. The new sovereignty is meaningless.
My employer gives me the opportunity to work temporarily in Europe, which I would like to take up but am prevented by your "control". I acknowledge this isn't the biggest catastrophe facing the nation. I would accept it willingly if someone could point to a clear demonstrable benefit that makes it worthwhile. Something. Anything at all.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Absolutely. I would say that 99.9% of the people who cited immigration as an issue for their Brexit vote wanted a tripling in net migration within five years.
...and from far more exotic places than Portugal and Poland.
Perhaps the Remain campaign should have gone with "Keep Britain White".
Well, no, because Boris Johnson did explain quite graphically that after we sent the EU workers packing we could replace them with "our friends from the Indian subcontinent". That was fine by me as a Remainer, I just wanted to keep my FOM. Presumably it was also fine for all those Leavers who just wanted to get rid of the Poles and replace them with Bangladeshis
I have done them in the past. Four pictures of people. Some combination of black, white, Asian, South Asian, male, female, one in a wheelchair, one with one hand, one in a smart suit, one in business casual (ugh).
Question: which one of these do you think is a bricklayer.
Absurd.
1. It's like Mansonian conditioning. 2+2=5 is everywhere in British culture nowadays.
2. It's also illustration of mass white-collar overemployment since the onset of widespread computerisation about 40 years ago.
1 can go on. 2 can't.
so will will replace all these overemployed workers
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
Are they funding some re-building project? How on Earth can they charge £100 to get in?
I guess because people will pay it so they know they can.
Well, no, because Boris Johnson did explain quite graphically that after we sent the EU workers packing we could replace them with "our friends from the Indian subcontinent". That was fine by me as a Remainer, I just wanted to keep my FOM. Presumably it was also fine for all those Leavers who just wanted to get rid of the Poles and replace them with Bangladeshis
Never forget Priti Patel saying one day we needed to bring immigration down whilst secretly lobbying to have more immigrants from India.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
The royals want it both ways. Sometimes it's give us money and tongue our mud sockets as is our divine right. Other times it's please respect our privacy. Fuck them.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
The royals want it both ways. Sometimes it's give us money and tongue our mud sockets as is our divine right. Other times it's please respect our privacy. Fuck them.
I am quite content to respect their privacy and not pay them £100 to traipse around their gaff.
When I last opened a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unusual, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
What is grotesque, is a family that is literally there by divine right opening a house for £100 to make a profit from during a cost of living crisis. They don't need the money. It is just pure greed.
Your comparison is laughable. Obviously - and you knew that when you made it.
They're not there by divine right. They're there by Act of Parliament.
The country doesn't own them. They're not slaves. They retain the right to own private property and to use that property within the law the same as everybody else.
Lots of people own multiple properties. Might be a good idea to charge those people extra property tax, but if they want to charge entry, or rent them out, it mostly isn't any of my business (though there's a case for regulating short-term lets to prevent tourists from pricing locals out of housing in some places).
So the more relevant questions would be: Are they paying VAT on these tickets? Will they be taxed on the profit? Do they have appropriate insurance for providing ticketed access to members of the public?
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
Most of us have private property. I'm employed by the state, but it doesn't mean the state owns all my stuff, even that stuff I bought with my public sector wages. Though if the state paid for the renovation of Balmoral on top of Chas's wages, that puts a different spin on things!
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Legal immigration from EU countries has reduced hasn't it?
And we were promised controlled migration not an end to it.
Brexit allows us to have the current high rate of immigration that we could have had anyway.
It is controlled and the mix is different. Essentially we are now able to control who comes here. That is what the leave campaign promised. Not that we would get none. We are getting what we were promised.
Absolutely. I would say that 99.9% of the people who cited immigration as an issue for their Brexit vote wanted a tripling in net migration within five years.
Considering the various reasons why controlling immigration is seen as desirable (pressure on public services, pay and job security, cultural assimilation), it's not obvious that any of them are compatible with increasing numbers.
Remember the Vote Leave PPB? I'm pretty sure the promise was that granny would see a doctor faster because there wouldn't be all these people crowding the waiting room.
FF43 is right though. Brexit means we can control immigration. We just don't. Granted, it takes a lot of political effort to overcome the institutional preference for immigration. But this lot don't appear to be even trying.
Go back to the main flows.
We don't have to accept so many foreign students into UK universities. But they are the only ones paying enough to keep the system going. So we pay more ourselves, or reduce the amount of Higher Education in the UK. Neither of which is an attractive prospect.
We don't have to have so many foreign staff doing the jobs that UK nationals won't. Famously in health and social care, but in a number of other sectors as well. But that either means more capital spend (so that more can be done more efficiently by fewer staff), pay rises (so that the jobs are more attractive because supply and demand broadly works) or both. Again, good luck getting popular support for that.
I reckon it boils down to notional control and actual power being different things. The core slogan of Vote Leave was Take Back Control. And we have done that. But for various reasons, turning those controls into powers has turned out to be beyond the ability of this government. The only question is whether a different government will be able to do that more efficiently, or whether it's not a practical proposition.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
The royals want it both ways. Sometimes it's give us money and tongue our mud sockets as is our divine right. Other times it's please respect our privacy. Fuck them.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
The royals want it both ways. Sometimes it's give us money and tongue our mud sockets as is our divine right. Other times it's please respect our privacy. Fuck them.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
Most of us have private property. I'm employed by the state, but it doesn't mean the state owns all my stuff, even that stuff I bought with my public sector wages. Though if the state paid for the renovation of Balmoral on top of Chas's wages, that puts a different spin on things!
The Royal Family secretly lobbied against taxing them on their property. The way it works is at best opaque.
You didn't get your job by being born into the Royal Family. I assume you worked hard to get it.
Thanks to fellow PBers for the comments and welcomes – much appreciated.
When I first materialised a couple of weeks ago, @ydoethur said 'Welcome to the bear pit'. No bears in sight yet, but I am prepared... to run for the hills like Brave Sir Robin.
@Foxy Thanks for posting some of the bio I disclosed when @Malmesbury was testing me to see if I was a Russian troll. I think I passed the test (ie, negative), but I still haven't disclosed my opinion about pineapple on pizza - or indeed whether Diehard is a Christmas movie. I might just sit on the fence on these for a bit ...
Isn’t fence-sitting potentially a banning offence?
When I last opened a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unusual, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
What is grotesque, is a family that is literally there by divine right opening a house for £100 to make a profit from during a cost of living crisis. They don't need the money. It is just pure greed.
Your comparison is laughable. Obviously - and you knew that when you made it.
They're not there by divine right. They're there by Act of Parliament.
The country doesn't own them. They're not slaves. They retain the right to own private property and to use that property within the law the same as everybody else.
Lots of people own multiple properties. Might be a good idea to charge those people extra property tax, but if they want to charge entry, or rent them out, it mostly isn't any of my business (though there's a case for regulating short-term lets to prevent tourists from pricing locals out of housing in some places).
So the more relevant questions would be: Are they paying VAT on these tickets? Will they be taxed on the profit? Do they have appropriate insurance for providing ticketed access to members of the public?
I think you can make the reasonable argument that if any very wealthy person started charging an excessive fee to get into somewhere, there would be an outcry.
It's just as shameful when people jack up the prices of concert tickets, for example.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
When I last owned a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unbelievable, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
Whereas the argument that Charles owns it because his great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather pulled a sword out of a rock on a lake is far less bizarre and unbelievable.
But they must be serving Yorkshire Tea to justify the price.
Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?
You ever come across a landlord before?
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
Do you think £100 to get into a building which notionally the country owns is acceptable? £100? In a cost of living crisis?
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
As has already been established, it is not owned by the country, notionally or otherwise.
It SHOULD be owned by the country, is the point I was making. Why should they get to own it and make money from it? They work for us, at least that is what they claim to do.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
When I last owned a house I also worked for the government. Would you like to lay claim to the possession of any of my private belongings as a result? What a bizarre, unbelievable, grotesque, and unprecedented, argument.
Whereas the argument that Charles owns it because his great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather pulled a sword out of a rock on a lake is far less bizarre and unbelievable.
I think it was more pulling a sword out of a Dane - but easy mistake to make.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
It’s odd that otherwise freedom loving Casino reacts so negatively to the idea that people might exercise their freedom to indicate how they wish to be addressed.
The remarkable thing about Casino is that his attitudes appear to have aged way faster than his body (not that I have any evidence for the latter).
In the 3 completed months since the beginning of the year, 756 trials that were ready to commence had to be adjourned on what should have been Day One, because no barrister could be found to prosecute the Crown’s case.
Interesting. In Scotland the bigger challenge is to get defence counsel. In sex cases (which is the bulk of what we do) the accused are not allowed to represent themselves so if you cannot find defence counsel the case goes off.
You’re not allowed to defend yourself in court? Presumably this is to do specifically with sexual offences and relates to cross-examination, in which case is the State expected to pay for a defence counsel?
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Adding pronouns can be useful for foreign colleagues unfamiliar with some names. I know in the past I've resorted to a Google image search for particular forenames to see if men or women pop up. It is not a good hill to die on.
My firm is on one of its regular rounds of "encouraging" staff (in particular senior staff) to include them, because (individuals claim) LGBT-identifying staff feel unsafe around anyone who doesn't have them.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Just tell them that you cannot decide how you identify and so to force you to include pronouns would be to force you to make a decision on your gender identity which would be against your rights. Should get them off your back.
Who is "we"? Assuming it refers to defence counsel in general why are sex cases the bulk of it? The historical stuff?
I am a prosecutor in the High Court in Scotland. Roughly 80% of our work is sex cases. There is a lot of historical stuff but the volume of sex based prosecutions is quite mind blowing.
That is extraordinary. Are you in a special bit whereby this is less unexpected (to me).
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Nope. This is the mainstream High Court. I get to do other crimes occasionally but rape and sexual abuse of children is our bread and butter.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
Wow. Well done you.
And I suppose you come to PB to restore your faith in the essential goodness of mankind.
Of course
As discussed with you before i am surprised this doesn't affect you mentally after hours. I also think the same for police/fire/ambulance personnel.
I'm pleased there are people doing jobs I wouldn't do.
Having said that I guess it is horses for courses. My wife (A doctor who trained as a pathologist) is not phased by any bodily fluids or gore, but is terrified of insects, reptiles and mammals (humans and dogs excepted) invading her space eg in the house. Whereas I am no fan of the former and have no issue with the latter. So a good combination when vomit needs clearing up or a spider needs removing.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1774831374706307436
"An alternative view of the three MRPs. How clear the Conservatives' win/loss was split into five categories, with the median across the three chosen.
On these figures, 38 'definites', 150 races decided by less than 5pts, 49 not implausible, 395 very likely unwinnable."
Mind you I did come across a video of a Howler Monkey having botfly larvae extracted from its neck on Youtube, as well as a kitten having one pulled out of its nose. Oddly therapeutic.
There could be lots of 3-way marginals this time and no-one is really sure on turnout or the extent of tactical voting.
The only thing I'd trust is John Curtice's exit poll.
This "rule" was always diluted by "exceptional circumstances" and fell apart during Covid. People spending 18 months in custody before trial is, sadly, no longer unusual. The defence have given up trying to make a fuss about it so we go through the formalities of extending time limits at each calling of the case without objection.
I think there are more effective means of achieving these goals. CR would no doubt disagree with me but I think that things like tearing down statues are much more effective as they spur a conversation around the historical drivers of discrimination that can also lead to introspection about our own attitudes and assumptions. The fact is we live in a society absolutely steeped in racism and other forms of discrimination, and while things are improving we have all been formed by this society and this history to some degree.
One final thought - there are interesting tests for unconscious bias out there that I would recommend taking, just in order to know oneself better. I was relieved to find when I did it that I didn't actually harbour any subconscious bias, at least not according to the test. So that was nice.
All of this stuff about reparations for slavery/the caribbean nations, what about reparations to the people of this country Who had land and assets stolen from them and whose ancestor worked for a pittance to put fabulous wealth in the hands of these parasitic organisations ?
This is my biggest gripe with the government and "Conservative" thinking generally. They have simply taken control of public spending too far, and too far away from the people actually involved. The best way to save money in public services from here is to invest, both in people and equipment.
We'll never have a greater chance of a Christmas election campaign.
Difficult to tell the difference between 4 shades.
Much anti-Monarchy rhetoric is just left-wing politics masquerading as Republicanism. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies; the country that elected Trump is not.
That said politicians who make it their business to criticise what people eat shouldn't be on the front line of politics.
Your mind seems made up - presumably for parochial reasons - and nothing is likely to change that. However, as a former Conservative, who only wants to see this aberration of a government consigned to history, I hope that other other more level heads within Labour - and the LibDems - will take a more cooperative approach.
And without any details whatsoever is it mainly he said/she said issues or something else.
Probably not the majority view, but a view nonetheless.
So, pretty much we've been told outright that anyone who doesn't have them is de facto assumed to be a bigot.
Bollocks to the idea it's about smoothing across cultural boundaries.
Remember the Vote Leave PPB? I'm pretty sure the promise was that granny would see a doctor faster because there wouldn't be all these people crowding the waiting room.
Do they need the money?
I am not anti-monarchy as much as I am totally bemused why they do things like this. My honest opinion on them is that I would happily see them removed but it would be so much pointless aggravation that I would allow them to stay.
In Scotland we have a requirement of corroboration, that is a second source of evidence that is at least consistent with the evidence of the complainer. This requirement has been somewhat diluted over the years by the courts. Corroboration can come from similar fact evidence where there is more than 1 complainer and they have been treated in a similar way, from the distress of the complainer observed and spoken to by another witness, by a course of conduct some of which has corroboration but the remainder of which is again similar evidence of similar acts.
Of course these days (not in historic cases) DNA usually establishes penetration and identity so the question is usually whether there was consent or not. The deeply depressing truth is that there are a frighteningly large number of violent, misogynistic men who have quite extraordinary views of what they are entitled to. It is a very dark undercurrent of our society.
It should be open to all on principle.
I can understand them having one private residence but they don't have one. They have several.
Granted, it takes a lot of political effort to overcome the institutional preference for immigration. But this lot don't appear to be even trying.
Have they earned them? Worked hard to get them? No. They are literally there by birth.
But yes, feel free to put words in my mouth and argue a point I didn't make. As usual.
And I suppose you come to PB to restore your faith in the essential goodness of mankind.
But it seems that, in sexual matters, the testimony of women is uniquely worthless.
There is literally nothing so antithetical to this country than this setup. They have never worked a day in their lives to own these properties. They should be open to the public for free as museums and other attractions are. End of story.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/halting-arms-sales-to-israel-would-send-powerful-message-says-former-diplomat/ar-BB1kZVtp?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=90392a3b7fe44b21b8b33591a26132d4&ei=16
So answer, why should they be able to have so many and then charge for them? Why do they need so many properties?
As for your question, I am fine with people owning multiple properties.
Your comparison is laughable. Obviously - and you knew that when you made it.
Which is the practical problem with Brexit. It allows us to choose things we don't want while preventing what we do want. The new sovereignty is meaningless.
My employer gives me the opportunity to work temporarily in Europe, which I would like to take up but am prevented by your "control". I acknowledge this isn't the biggest catastrophe facing the nation. I would accept it willingly if someone could point to a clear demonstrable benefit that makes it worthwhile. Something. Anything at all.
You literally said "Why on Earth do they get private property they can make money from? What part of that is okay?".
The country doesn't own them. They're not slaves. They retain the right to own private property and to use that property within the law the same as everybody else.
Lots of people own multiple properties. Might be a good idea to charge those people extra property tax, but if they want to charge entry, or rent them out, it mostly isn't any of my business (though there's a case for regulating short-term lets to prevent tourists from pricing locals out of housing in some places).
So the more relevant questions would be: Are they paying VAT on these tickets? Will they be taxed on the profit? Do they have appropriate insurance for providing ticketed access to members of the public?
Though if the state paid for the renovation of Balmoral on top of Chas's wages, that puts a different spin on things!
We don't have to accept so many foreign students into UK universities. But they are the only ones paying enough to keep the system going. So we pay more ourselves, or reduce the amount of Higher Education in the UK. Neither of which is an attractive prospect.
We don't have to have so many foreign staff doing the jobs that UK nationals won't. Famously in health and social care, but in a number of other sectors as well. But that either means more capital spend (so that more can be done more efficiently by fewer staff), pay rises (so that the jobs are more attractive because supply and demand broadly works) or both. Again, good luck getting popular support for that.
I reckon it boils down to notional control and actual power being different things. The core slogan of Vote Leave was Take Back Control. And we have done that. But for various reasons, turning those controls into powers has turned out to be beyond the ability of this government. The only question is whether a different government will be able to do that more efficiently, or whether it's not a practical proposition.
You didn't get your job by being born into the Royal Family. I assume you worked hard to get it.
It's just as shameful when people jack up the prices of concert tickets, for example.
They've had so many "accidents". It is quite obvious they don't give a toss about anyone getting in their way of some of their ridiculous objectives.
The UK should stop selling them arms - and the US needs to withdraw funding and support and bring this chaos to an end.
The remarkable thing about Casino is that his attitudes appear to have aged way faster than his body (not that I have any evidence for the latter).
I'm pleased there are people doing jobs I wouldn't do.
Having said that I guess it is horses for courses. My wife (A doctor who trained as a pathologist) is not phased by any bodily fluids or gore, but is terrified of insects, reptiles and mammals (humans and dogs excepted) invading her space eg in the house. Whereas I am no fan of the former and have no issue with the latter. So a good combination when vomit needs clearing up or a spider needs removing.