Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
I've known since 2015 that deleting messages/photos on one device doesn't automatically delete it from all my Apple devices.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Most of the people fighting Nigel's Oswald's mob on Cable Street weren't Etonians. Doesn't take an expensive education to not accidentally be a Nazi.
Indeed. In point of fact the lack of expensive education probably a positive benefit in avoiding getting the horn for Nazi’s or Communists.
I quite like the way NF is dealing with this; it's smart not to get bogged down and beaten into retreat - just carry on, bulldoze through it, and hype people up about your PPB.
Basically, Macron's decision caused the latent divisions in the Republican Party and Reconquête, the National Rally's rivals on its left and on its right respectively, to blow up in the open and it looks as though it will effectively kill those parties, which will mostly benefit the National Rally.
On the left, where one week ago it seemed that any alliance was impossible because the leaders of the centrist wing of the bloc were outraged by the behavior of LFI, the main party on the left and the left wing of that bloc, Macron's decision forced them to make an alliance anyway because if they don't they will be wiped out. So they will run as a relatively strong and unified bloc.
The result is that Ensemble, Macron's alliance in the center, is going to be squeezed between a strong left-wing bloc and a very strong right-wing bloc led by the National Rally. While at the moment this alliance holds a plurality of seat in the Assembly, it will probably be mostly wiped out as a result.
The left-wing bloc will limit the damage and will probably even gain seats, while the National Rally will make huge gains, almost certainly obtaining a plurality of seats in the Assembly and possibly even getting a straight majority. The only real question in my opinion is how big the National Rally's victory will be and in particular whether it will be able to get a majority.
So why did Macron do such a crazy thing? At the end of the day, nobody really knows, but while various more or less plausible strategic calculi are being floated by different people, I increasingly think that he convinced himself that, if he forced French voters to choose between him and the far-left or the far-right, they would choose him.
Is that right? No, it's not, if that's really his calculus then he is completely delusional. His decision will reunify the left and destroy the National Rally's rivals on the right, putting his own movement in a squeeze that will largely destroy it. It seems crazy and therefore people are looking for more complicated explanations, but I really think it's a classic case of hubris gone wrong.
Macron's main impact on French politics was the destruction of the decades-long left-right opposition by creating a centrist bloc that takes away enough votes on the center-left and the center-right to constitute a majority. Ironically, with his decision to call snap elections, he'll recreate that left-right opposition, except that in that new configuration the left-wing bloc will be dominated by the far-left and the right-wing bloc will be dominated by the far-right. It's truly extraordinary.
Apparently Simon Danzcuk of Labour to Reform fame is backing McVey in Tatton, to the extent of sending letters/leaflets out to that effect. Solid principles.
Well, just as long as he's not sending out texts to first time voters.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 times - not per cent - in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
I wouldn't worry. If he gets what he wants we can crowd fund a sardine tinning factory up wind of his estate.
And I'd have absolutely no objection to that.
So you're saying if we get what I want, we might have both housing growth and economic growth too?
And your objection to that is ... ?
Good. You'll be able to lend a hand when we contract for Whiskers on the weekends.
Can I nominate relocating "Re-Food"? The vats of, er, material, are fab.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
I've known since 2015 that deleting messages/photos on one device doesn't automatically delete it from all my Apple devices.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Most of the people fighting Nigel's Oswald's mob on Cable Street weren't Etonians. Doesn't take an expensive education to not accidentally be a Nazi.
Indeed. In point of fact the lack of expensive education probably a positive benefit in avoiding getting the horn for Nazi’s or Communists.
I quite like the way NF is dealing with this; it's smart not to get bogged down and beaten into retreat - just carry on, bulldoze through it, and hype people up about your PPB.
I’m not sure I’m fine with someone being blasé about a sizeable portion of his party being Nazi adjacent, but you do you.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I think all of this stuff is contributing to their current low ceiling, which might be around 14-17%. , The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
I don't know the details of this, but how did his ex get access to his messages at all? If he showed them to her or gave her his password, then that might prove a flaw in his case.
So to use Apple devices you need to login using your Apple ID.
He was logged into his iPhone and his iMac, his wife had access to the latter and the messages were visible on the iMac.
“Oh dear, it seems some of these retiring Labour MPs who had peerages dangled in front of them to encourage [them to] give up their seats, didn't know that in its manifesto Labour was about to impose a new age limit for members of the Lords, of 80 at the end of each Parliament.”
LOL
Mugged off by the bright young things in charge of Labour now.
Serves them right.
Re Labour's proposed age limit of 80 for the House of Lords.
Margaret Beckett is 81, Margaret Hodge 79 and Barry Sheerman 83 and I think they are the only ones likely to be affected. The others are either at least one parliamentary term younger, like Harriet Harman at 73, and George Howarth at 74, and a lot more in their 60s, or not famous enough.
Many 80 year olds are more energetic and on the ball than some 60 year olds. So a bad idea imo.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
I don't know the details of this, but how did his ex get access to his messages at all? If he showed them to her or gave her his password, then that might prove a flaw in his case.
So to use Apple devices you need to login using your Apple ID.
He was logged into his iPhone and his iMac, his wife had access to the latter and the messages were visible on the iMac.
Which is why each family member should have their own login on the computer.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Most of the people fighting Nigel's Oswald's mob on Cable Street weren't Etonians. Doesn't take an expensive education to not accidentally be a Nazi.
Indeed. In point of fact the lack of expensive education probably a positive benefit in avoiding getting the horn for Nazi’s or Communists.
I quite like the way NF is dealing with this; it's smart not to get bogged down and beaten into retreat - just carry on, bulldoze through it, and hype people up about your PPB.
I assumed that 'NF' here was for National Front, then realised it wasn't. But it works either way, I guess. NF can deal with the unfortunate association with Reform, carry on, bulldoze through it etc
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
I don't know the details of this, but how did his ex get access to his messages at all? If he showed them to her or gave her his password, then that might prove a flaw in his case.
So to use Apple devices you need to login using your Apple ID.
He was logged into his iPhone and his iMac, his wife had access to the latter and the messages were visible on the iMac.
Which is why each family member should have their own login on the computer.
Basically, Macron's decision caused the latent divisions in the Republican Party and Reconquête, the National Rally's rivals on its left and on its right respectively, to blow up in the open and it looks as though it will effectively kill those parties, which will mostly benefit the National Rally.
On the left, where one week ago it seemed that any alliance was impossible because the leaders of the centrist wing of the bloc were outraged by the behavior of LFI, the main party on the left and the left wing of that bloc, Macron's decision forced them to make an alliance anyway because if they don't they will be wiped out. So they will run as a relatively strong and unified bloc.
The result is that Ensemble, Macron's alliance in the center, is going to be squeezed between a strong left-wing bloc and a very strong right-wing bloc led by the National Rally. While at the moment this alliance holds a plurality of seat in the Assembly, it will probably be mostly wiped out as a result.
The left-wing bloc will limit the damage and will probably even gain seats, while the National Rally will make huge gains, almost certainly obtaining a plurality of seats in the Assembly and possibly even getting a straight majority. The only real question in my opinion is how big the National Rally's victory will be and in particular whether it will be able to get a majority.
So why did Macron do such a crazy thing? At the end of the day, nobody really knows, but while various more or less plausible strategic calculi are being floated by different people, I increasingly think that he convinced himself that, if he forced French voters to choose between him and the far-left or the far-right, they would choose him.
Is that right? No, it's not, if that's really his calculus then he is completely delusional. His decision will reunify the left and destroy the National Rally's rivals on the right, putting his own movement in a squeeze that will largely destroy it. It seems crazy and therefore people are looking for more complicated explanations, but I really think it's a classic case of hubris gone wrong.
Macron's main impact on French politics was the destruction of the decades-long left-right opposition by creating a centrist bloc that takes away enough votes on the center-left and the center-right to constitute a majority. Ironically, with his decision to call snap elections, he'll recreate that left-right opposition, except that in that new configuration the left-wing bloc will be dominated by the far-left and the right-wing bloc will be dominated by the far-right. It's truly extraordinary.
Assuming that people you hate are stupid gets called out all the time when it's normal people about Trump. In this case, though, it's a guy who rants about black people and crime on Twitter and it's about Macron.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
I don't know the details of this, but how did his ex get access to his messages at all? If he showed them to her or gave her his password, then that might prove a flaw in his case.
So to use Apple devices you need to login using your Apple ID.
He was logged into his iPhone and his iMac, his wife had access to the latter and the messages were visible on the iMac.
Deleted my post, it was a mistake to comment on the story, ignore.
Also shouldn’t we be getting one or more new MRPs soon?
I'm guessing (and it is purely a guess) that the YouGo Sky MRP might come out Monday. They tend to release them on Mondays and they will probably want to capture the post manifesto period to see if anything much has changed.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Sunak is far, far worse than Major.
Sunak is far worse than IDS.
I always have a slight soft spot and fondness for Ian Duncan-Smith, because his "Quiet Man" speech was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in politics.
Sunsk is more of a slowly-developing character, Tony Hancock, or Frank Spencer.
I think @Gardenwalker put it well when he said he has virtually no political instincts and what political instincts he does have are shit.
Essentially, he believes in everyone being a spreadsheet wanker and low taxes being the answer to everything.
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
They should have security measures in place to stop this sort of thing from happening. Why don't they?
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I think all of this stuff is contributing to their current low ceiling, which might be around 14-17%. , The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
I will never vote Reform.
What would you do if you lived in Rotherham where there isn't a Tory candidate?
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Apparently Simon Danzcuk of Labour to Reform fame is backing McVey in Tatton, to the extent of sending letters/leaflets out to that effect. Solid principles.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Sunak is far, far worse than Major.
Sunak is far worse than IDS.
I always have a slight soft spot and fondness for Ian Duncan-Smith, because his "Quiet Man" speech was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in politics.
Sunsk is more of a slowly-developing character, Tony Hancock, or Frank Spencer.
I think @Gardenwalker put it well when he said he has virtually no political instincts and what political instincts he does have are shit.
Essentially, he believes in everyone being a spreadsheet wanker and low taxes being the answer to everything.
Say what you like about Sunak he seems to have become Macron's role model, which in itself is a considerable achievement.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.
If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.
Can you have a go at writing a design code?
How high, and how close to the boundary? What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours? how many houses on each plot? what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land? noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?
How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.
How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.
Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.
How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.
Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.
Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.
Who wants peasants overlooking their garden, they can keep their multistorey rabbit hutches for deserving fools like you.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I think all of this stuff is contributing to their current low ceiling, which might be around 14-17%. , The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
I will never vote Reform.
What would you do if you lived in Rotherham where there isn't a Tory candidate?
Apparently Simon Danzcuk of Labour to Reform fame is backing McVey in Tatton, to the extent of sending letters/leaflets out to that effect. Solid principles.
Basically, Macron's decision caused the latent divisions in the Republican Party and Reconquête, the National Rally's rivals on its left and on its right respectively, to blow up in the open and it looks as though it will effectively kill those parties, which will mostly benefit the National Rally.
On the left, where one week ago it seemed that any alliance was impossible because the leaders of the centrist wing of the bloc were outraged by the behavior of LFI, the main party on the left and the left wing of that bloc, Macron's decision forced them to make an alliance anyway because if they don't they will be wiped out. So they will run as a relatively strong and unified bloc.
The result is that Ensemble, Macron's alliance in the center, is going to be squeezed between a strong left-wing bloc and a very strong right-wing bloc led by the National Rally. While at the moment this alliance holds a plurality of seat in the Assembly, it will probably be mostly wiped out as a result.
The left-wing bloc will limit the damage and will probably even gain seats, while the National Rally will make huge gains, almost certainly obtaining a plurality of seats in the Assembly and possibly even getting a straight majority. The only real question in my opinion is how big the National Rally's victory will be and in particular whether it will be able to get a majority.
So why did Macron do such a crazy thing? At the end of the day, nobody really knows, but while various more or less plausible strategic calculi are being floated by different people, I increasingly think that he convinced himself that, if he forced French voters to choose between him and the far-left or the far-right, they would choose him.
Is that right? No, it's not, if that's really his calculus then he is completely delusional. His decision will reunify the left and destroy the National Rally's rivals on the right, putting his own movement in a squeeze that will largely destroy it. It seems crazy and therefore people are looking for more complicated explanations, but I really think it's a classic case of hubris gone wrong.
Macron's main impact on French politics was the destruction of the decades-long left-right opposition by creating a centrist bloc that takes away enough votes on the center-left and the center-right to constitute a majority. Ironically, with his decision to call snap elections, he'll recreate that left-right opposition, except that in that new configuration the left-wing bloc will be dominated by the far-left and the right-wing bloc will be dominated by the far-right. It's truly extraordinary.
Did you see Armando Iannucci's twitter posts about this earlier? Also interesting.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.
Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.
Carnyx you are debating with an idiot, pointless. Has the brains of a ginger bottle
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
I don't know the details of this, but how did his ex get access to his messages at all? If he showed them to her or gave her his password, then that might prove a flaw in his case.
So to use Apple devices you need to login using your Apple ID.
He was logged into his iPhone and his iMac, his wife had access to the latter and the messages were visible on the iMac.
Which is why each family member should have their own login on the computer.
Assuming that people you hate are stupid gets called out all the time when it's normal people about Trump. In this case, though, it's a guy who rants about black people and crime on Twitter and it's about Macron.
I don't think he's accusing Macron of being stupid, just of having miscalculated out of hubris. Maybe Macron will be vindicated in the end but it doesn't seem implausible that his project of forming a majority from the centre won't outlast his own political career.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Also shouldn’t we be getting one or more new MRPs soon?
I'm guessing (and it is purely a guess) that the YouGo Sky MRP might come out Monday. They tend to release them on Mondays and they will probably want to capture the post manifesto period to see if anything much has changed.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I think all of this stuff is contributing to their current low ceiling, which might be around 14-17%. , The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
I'm long of LD seats at 40. I think they have a lot of upside with the dynamics of this election.
I'm in the naughty corner along with CR and RCS. We thought Sporting's opening offer of 36-40 screamed 'sell'. I've reversed out since and bought in recently at 44.
Hope they did the same.
Well done (I think). That's something I have difficulty doing, reversing out when I suspect I've gone in the wrong way with my first foray.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
So that's it? That's our choice, is it, Nigel? Eton or the Fourth Reich?
How about, instead, and this may seem like a radical proposal, but give it some thought: fuck off.
Strangely, your churlish post actually makes me want to defend it.
Beforehand I was going to write: "And that's why we don't vote Reform, folks."
So you were going to attack Nazi sympathies, but disagreeing with me is more important? Good good.
Someone from the other side of the political divide telling someone on my side, however loosely, to fuck off just makes us all want to bandy together.
Lesson to learn.
What on Earth has got into you Casino? You are one of the good guys on here, a gent. Yet recently every other post seems to be attacking a fellow PBer for some self-defined minor transgression or another? Wassup?
Aside from something totally unexpected, are there any other milestones now that could shift opinion?
Polling lead has bounced around the 20% mark for the last week or so. I guess we might see if the manifesto moves things but my instinct is that it will not.
My instinct, as I've said throughout, is that the Reform surge won't be seen in the actual vote, which will probably help the Conservatives.
But with three weeks to go, and the Euros about to kick off tomorrow, I struggle to see what will change now. The final debate, I guess.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
So that's it? That's our choice, is it, Nigel? Eton or the Fourth Reich?
How about, instead, and this may seem like a radical proposal, but give it some thought: fuck off.
Strangely, your churlish post actually makes me want to defend it.
Beforehand I was going to write: "And that's why we don't vote Reform, folks."
So you were going to attack Nazi sympathies, but disagreeing with me is more important? Good good.
Someone from the other side of the political divide telling someone on my side, however loosely, to fuck off just makes us all want to bandy together.
Lesson to learn.
What on Earth has got into you Casino? You are one of the good guys on here, a gent. Yet recently every other post seems to be attacking a fellow PBer for some self-defined minor transgression or another? Wassup?
Agree. This will probably lead CR to tell me to fuck off, which will no doubt make me want to bandy together with all the centrist dads on 'my side', but that post makes me revise my opinion of him, downwards. I don't often channel Trump, but: SAD
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.
Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.
So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?
Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.
More xenophobia.
I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.
The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.
You are complaining about the fictitious expansion and saying "Other places can do their share" - exact quote.
As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.
So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.
Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
My neck is disproportionately small to my body, so collar size is completely the wrong measure for me for shirts, though thankfully I rarely have to wear the sort of shirt that is sold by collar size (which, when you take a step back, is a bizarre way to demarcate shirt size).
Agree that tight shirts look bad on everyone. Even if you've got a six pack physique, it still looks weird.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
WeThink out a day early this week 🔴 Lab 43% (-2) 🔵 Con 20% (NC) ⚪ Ref 14% (-1) 🟠 LD 11% (+1) 🟢 Green 6% (+1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1) ⚫ Ind 2% 12-13 Jun
As above, Labour will be happy with that
I thought we were promised by many e.g. Leon that Reform were going to re-write British politics?
They're such a tawdry bunch. That's my main problem with the populist right. They always seem to attract such ghastly people.
As the election approaches and more detail from Labour comes out, they're going to alienate more people* - and the Conservative vote in FPTP has always been driven by fear of Labour. I think we'll see the 'right' vote coalesce around the Conservatives a bit in the lead up to July 4th, together with a bit of Lab-Ref churn.
*I don't mean to disparage Labour in particular by this - the inevitable result of detail coming out is that people will find things to dislike about it. Would be true of any party.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Apparently Simon Danzcuk of Labour to Reform fame is backing McVey in Tatton, to the extent of sending letters/leaflets out to that effect. Solid principles.
Seriously weird guy.
Simon Danzcuk was one of those MPs who got swept up by the paedophile panic fuelled in part by fraudsters Carl Beech and Chris Fay, which then fuelled the Operation Midland and Operation Conifer investigations.
Other MPs taken in and propagating it without evidence, but protected by parliamentary privilege, were Tom Watson and Zac Goldsmith.
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
Now you've really nailed today's top (haha) issue.
I presume short shirts are a sneaky way for manufacturers to save a few cm of material on every shirt but it's bloody irritating. Charles Tyrwhitt used to advertise their shirts as being longer in the body, and they were. But not anymore.
(I assume TSE will be along in a moment to explain which Jermyn Street shirtmaker I should be using, at the cost of a small car per shirt.)
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.
If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.
Can you have a go at writing a design code?
How high, and how close to the boundary? What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours? how many houses on each plot? what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land? noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?
How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.
How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.
Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.
How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.
Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.
Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.
Who wants peasants overlooking their garden, they can keep their multistorey rabbit hutches for deserving fools like you.
I'd be worried if pheasants could overlook my garden fence....
I have a question for all you techies, which is a neat follow up to the Apple discussion.
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
My neck is disproportionately small to my body, so collar size is completely the wrong measure for me for shirts, though thankfully I rarely have to wear the sort of shirt that is sold by collar size (which, when you take a step back, is a bizarre way to demarcate shirt size).
Agree that tight shirts look bad on everyone. Even if you've got a six pack physique, it still looks weird.
My husband who is largely responsible for dressing me has a huge preference for the tight shirt and slim fit trousers. I secretly long to have Lyndon Johnson's voluminous trousers and Keir's billowing shirts.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I think all of this stuff is contributing to their current low ceiling, which might be around 14-17%. , The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
I will never vote Reform.
What would you do if you lived in Rotherham where there isn't a Tory candidate?
“Oh dear, it seems some of these retiring Labour MPs who had peerages dangled in front of them to encourage [them to] give up their seats, didn't know that in its manifesto Labour was about to impose a new age limit for members of the Lords, of 80 at the end of each Parliament.”
LOL
Mugged off by the bright young things in charge of Labour now.
Serves them right.
Re Labour's proposed age limit of 80 for the House of Lords.
Margaret Beckett is 81, Margaret Hodge 79 and Barry Sheerman 83 and I think they are the only ones likely to be affected. The others are either at least one parliamentary term younger, like Harriet Harman at 73, and George Howarth at 74, and a lot more in their 60s, or not famous enough.
Many 80 year olds are more energetic and on the ball than some 60 year olds. So a bad idea imo.
Terrible idea. Easily the most impressive speech I've heard in the Lords recently was by Ken Clarke (84) on Rwanda. Hezza, at 90, is still more cogent and passionate than most of our current frontbenchers. Starmer's proposal needs to be scrapped.
That's weird! He has exactly the same handwriting as our local Labour candidate whose identically designed leaflet popped through the door today! What are the chances of that, hey?
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
When Starmer dresses casual, he looks like a Casual. Is that his big secret? He used to be a Top Boy in an Arsenal firm back in the 80s? Are there still a couple of Pringle jumpers lurking at the back of his wardrobe?
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
So that's it? That's our choice, is it, Nigel? Eton or the Fourth Reich?
How about, instead, and this may seem like a radical proposal, but give it some thought: fuck off.
Strangely, your churlish post actually makes me want to defend it.
Beforehand I was going to write: "And that's why we don't vote Reform, folks."
So you were going to attack Nazi sympathies, but disagreeing with me is more important? Good good.
Someone from the other side of the political divide telling someone on my side, however loosely, to fuck off just makes us all want to bandy together.
Lesson to learn.
What on Earth has got into you Casino? You are one of the good guys on here, a gent. Yet recently every other post seems to be attacking a fellow PBer for some self-defined minor transgression or another? Wassup?
He's anticipating, for the first time in a decade and a half, a Labour government, and is understandably a bit grumpy about it. Casino wears his heart on his sleeve, which is fine. Just take his posts with a pinch of salt.
I have a question for all you techies, which is a neat follow up to the Apple discussion.
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
Any advice / comments gratefully received.
xx
Not an Apple fan, I use Android, but yes I use contactless payments for ~99% of all my payments (Tesco pay@pump requires the use of a card annoyingly for the other 1%, Asda allows contactless at the pump). Though I normally use my phone more than my watch.
Its far safer than any other means of payment IMHO. And has no piddly £100 limit unlikely normal contactless so you can do big expenditures on it too, but its more secure doing so on your own secure device than on a card.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.
Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.
So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?
Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.
More xenophobia.
I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.
The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.
You are complaining about the fictitious expansion and saying "Other places can do their share" - exact quote.
As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.
So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.
Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.
You're picking variables to try and accuse me of lying.
I wasn't talking aboiut a county but about a town. And not just over ten years either, but my lifetime. If it gets any bigger then we will end up with the sort of problems you will have when only houses are built without facilities near by. That's already a point of contention.
If this is the way you treat people who are already fairly sympathetic then I'm going to go and vote bloody LD as a result.
I have a question for all you techies, which is a neat follow up to the Apple discussion.
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
Any advice / comments gratefully received.
xx
It's fine apart from a really annoying habit of saying "Updating cards" and pausing about every 20th time you try to pay for something, which is a really stupid bit of UI given that you're probably standing at a till at the time and everyone's waiting behind you. So I usually make sure I've got another payment method with me.
Labour have won. And in all likelihood will win a supermassive landslide.
But there’s still a huge amount of uncertainty in this election.
1. How low will the Tories go? 2. Can the Tories cling to 150-180-ish seats or is ELE approaching? 3. Will there be Reform crossover? If it keeps surging how many seats can it realistically pick up? 4. Are LDs surging or flatlining? 5. Will the Labour vote share start with a 3 or a 4?
Still a fascinating election.
1. All the way 2. 100-125 i reckon 3. Yes, but briely. 0-5 seats 4. Flatlining. 5. A 4.
“Our plan to change Britain” – bland, but clear. The title of the manifesto itself is just ‘Change’, so maybe they added the plan bit because the alleged lack of a plan is the Tory attack line.
The second page is just a graphic with change written like 200 times – I am sensing a theme
Large print, easy read, and easy read colour, versions available soon
136 pages, the longest manifesto yet. Ugh
Still no hyperlinking. Double ugh.
Long foreword before the contents page even – but does have 6 key first steps, which is a good idea, gives a few policies for people to remember without even looking at the rest. It has it at the end as well
Pictures of leader – At least 35!
All elections are ultimately ‘Time for Change’ or ‘Don’t risk it’. Labour are back to basics with this title at least.
Foreword
“This election is about change”. Time to restore hope, stop the chaos, turn the page, rebuild our country. Five national missions to rebuild.
“I know some people will roll their eyes at this last sentence [about serving the country]” – a more personal style than the other manifestos, at least in the intro.
First steps for change – deliver economic stability, cut NHS waiting times through 40k more appointments a week by cracking down on tax avoidance (note – the gift that never runs dry apparently), new border security command, publicly owned clean power company, crackdown on anti social behaviour, recruit 6.5k new teachers.
Really strange mix of key first steps.
Mission-driven government
Country held back by lack of long term focus and intergovernmental cooperation.
Five missions to rebuild Britain (note – screw you Northern Ireland?) – secure highest sustained growth in G7; Clean energy superpower to cut bills, create jobs, delivery security; Halve serious violent crime; reform childcare and education systems so no ceiling on ambition (note – pure guff); Build an NHS fit for the future
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
When Starmer dresses casual, he looks like a Casual. Is that his big secret? He used to be a Top Boy in an Arsenal firm back in the 80s? Are there still a couple of Pringle jumpers lurking at the back of his wardrobe?
I make no secret of the fact that I think he’s hot
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
My neck is disproportionately small to my body, so collar size is completely the wrong measure for me for shirts, though thankfully I rarely have to wear the sort of shirt that is sold by collar size (which, when you take a step back, is a bizarre way to demarcate shirt size).
Agree that tight shirts look bad on everyone. Even if you've got a six pack physique, it still looks weird.
I have a question for all you techies, which is a neat follow up to the Apple discussion.
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
Any advice / comments gratefully received.
xx
Not an Apple fan, I use Android, but yes I use contactless payments for ~99% of all my payments (Tesco pay@pump requires the use of a card annoyingly for the other 1%, Asda allows contactless at the pump). Though I normally use my phone more than my watch.
Its far safer than any other means of payment IMHO. And has no piddly £100 limit unlikely normal contactless so you can do big expenditures on it too, but its more secure doing so on your own secure device than on a card.
Apart from Express Pay (which only works on TfL services), it requires the use of a fingerprint or face. Both infinitely harder to break than a four digit pin which is as far as I can work out, is only a (1/10)^4 of guessing.
Apparently Simon Danzcuk of Labour to Reform fame is backing McVey in Tatton, to the extent of sending letters/leaflets out to that effect. Solid principles.
Seriously weird guy.
Simon Danzcuk was one of those MPs who got swept up by the paedophile panic fuelled in part by fraudsters Carl Beech and Chris Fay, which then fuelled the Operation Midland and Operation Conifer investigations.
Other MPs taken in and propagating it without evidence, but protected by parliamentary privilege, were Tom Watson and Zac Goldsmith.
Apparently Simon Danzcuk of Labour to Reform fame is backing McVey in Tatton, to the extent of sending letters/leaflets out to that effect. Solid principles.
Seriously weird guy.
Simon Danzcuk was one of those MPs who got swept up by the paedophile panic fuelled in part by fraudsters Carl Beech and Chris Fay, which then fuelled the Operation Midland and Operation Conifer investigations.
Other MPs taken in and propagating it without evidence, but protected by parliamentary privilege, were Tom Watson and Zac Goldsmith.
I have a question for all you techies, which is a neat follow up to the Apple discussion.
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
Any advice / comments gratefully received.
xx
Using a watch to pay for things? Stop taking the piss.
Is that something you saw on Star Trek or something?
WeThink out a day early this week 🔴 Lab 43% (-2) 🔵 Con 20% (NC) ⚪ Ref 14% (-1) 🟠 LD 11% (+1) 🟢 Green 6% (+1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1) ⚫ Ind 2% 12-13 Jun
As above, Labour will be happy with that
I thought we were promised by many e.g. Leon that Reform were going to re-write British politics?
They're such a tawdry bunch. That's my main problem with the populist right. They always seem to attract such ghastly people.
As the election approaches and more detail from Labour comes out, they're going to alienate more people* - and the Conservative vote in FPTP has always been driven by fear of Labour. I think we'll see the 'right' vote coalesce around the Conservatives a bit in the lead up to July 4th, together with a bit of Lab-Ref churn.
*I don't mean to disparage Labour in particular by this - the inevitable result of detail coming out is that people will find things to dislike about it. Would be true of any party.
The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.
Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling. https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
I have a question for all you techies, which is a neat follow up to the Apple discussion.
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
Any advice / comments gratefully received.
xx
Not an Apple fan, I use Android, but yes I use contactless payments for ~99% of all my payments (Tesco pay@pump requires the use of a card annoyingly for the other 1%, Asda allows contactless at the pump). Though I normally use my phone more than my watch.
Its far safer than any other means of payment IMHO. And has no piddly £100 limit unlikely normal contactless so you can do big expenditures on it too, but its more secure doing so on your own secure device than on a card.
Apart from Express Pay (which only works on TfL services), it requires the use of a fingerprint or face. Both infinitely harder to break than a four digit pin which is as far as I can work out, is only a (1/10)^4 of guessing.
The risk at the minute appears to be from people snatching your phone from your hand while it's unlocked and draining bank accounts.
Supposedly if the phone is unlocked, it's easy to side load something that prevents it from locking again, then you can hack your way round the rest of the protections.
I am incredibly wary these days about how much of my life I am giving away if someone snatches my phone out of my hand, especially if unlocked.
National security – Labour founded NATO. ‘Set out path’ to 2.5% GDP on defence. Mentions Skripal poisoning (note – fair to say Corbyn would not have). Martyn’s Law to strengthen security at events. Police to have powers and resources they need (Note – no detail).
Secure borders – Conservatives only offer gimmicks. Rwanda cost hundreds of millions, and won’t work. Labour will go after gangs, new border security command, funded by ending Rwanda. New security agreement with EU. Clear asylum backlog. Fast track removals to safe countries.
Economic Stability – Tory mini budget was a disaster, country paying the price. Limits to what gov can spend, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Chaos not over, Tories have unfunded tax cuts still.
Labour fiscal rule that current budget moves into balance, day to day costs met by revenues. Debt must be falling as share of economy by fifth year (Note – I guarantee this will not happen).
Families struggling. Energy costs will be reduced, food prices reduced. Expand childcare.. Free breakfast clubs in every primary school (note – I think everyone has promised this so far).
No NI increase, VAT increase, of basic, higher or additional income tax increase. Abolish non-dom status. Tackle tax avoidance.
Kickstart economic growth
Includes a pic of a café owner and ‘former conservative voter’.
New approach – securonomics (note – buzzwords are best words!)
New industrial strategy (note – LDs beat them to it)
National wealth fund 7.bn over 5 years
Money for ports, steel industry, gigfactories, green hydrogen
Stability through one fiscal event a year only.
25% corporation tax cap
Replace business rates – same revenue fairer way (note – what does this even mean?)
Bring railways into public ownership, new powers for local bus routes.
Short funding for R and D replaced with ten year budgets (note – if that was possible why aren’t we doing it now?)
Housing crisis – reform NPPF to restore mandatory housing targets (note – this is a good idea), strengthen presumption in favour of sustainable development. Fund additional planning officers through increasing stamp duty surcharge.
“Where necessary” Labour will use intervention powers to build houses we need (note – I don’t believe them, the first backbench rumbles will stop that).
Brownfield first, but not enough on its own (Note – my gods, this is actually a sensible point!) Release lower quality green belt land.
Widen devolution
New statutory local growth plans
Multi year funding settlements for local government.
Labour will reduce net migration – says reform the points based system to be fair (note – in what way?).
National jobs and careers service. Support disabled people into work. Work or apprenticeships for all those under 21.
Legislation on making work pay within 100 days
Minimum wage will be a living wage, but no details.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 times - not per cent - in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
I wouldn't worry. If he gets what he wants we can crowd fund a sardine tinning factory up wind of his estate.
And I'd have absolutely no objection to that.
So you're saying if we get what I want, we might have both housing growth and economic growth too?
And your objection to that is ... ?
Good. You'll be able to lend a hand when we contract for Whiskers on the weekends.
Can I nominate relocating "Re-Food"? The vats of, er, material, are fab.
Just back from a day out, haven't followed the manifesto launch or anything else today, but have quickly skimmed the more obvious sections looking for evidence of taxation straightjackets.
I can't find anything beyond the pledges to leave corporation tax, income tax, VAT and NI rates unchanged. Is there anything else that I'm missing? I can't find anything that explicitly rules out rises in CGT, the introduction of wealth taxes, or reform of council tax, for example. There appears to be a plan to replace business rates and I'm wondering if the pledge to raise the same revenues in a different way might just shift into an opportunity to rinse the likes of Amazon for a lot more, little high street independents for a little less, and increase the net take?
Anyway, I suppose we'll find out in the Autumn whether Reeves is going to stick to the 'solving all our problems through growth alone' schtick, or deploy the 'OMG the books are even worse than we thought' excuse, and deploy a suite of tax hikes. We know perfectly well that if taxes aren't raised significantly and the promised boom fails to materialise PDQ, the no return to austerity pledge will end up in the dustbin.
I have a question for all you techies, which is a neat follow up to the Apple discussion.
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
Any advice / comments gratefully received.
xx
Not an Apple fan, I use Android, but yes I use contactless payments for ~99% of all my payments (Tesco pay@pump requires the use of a card annoyingly for the other 1%, Asda allows contactless at the pump). Though I normally use my phone more than my watch.
Its far safer than any other means of payment IMHO. And has no piddly £100 limit unlikely normal contactless so you can do big expenditures on it too, but its more secure doing so on your own secure device than on a card.
Apart from Express Pay (which only works on TfL services), it requires the use of a fingerprint or face. Both infinitely harder to break than a four digit pin which is as far as I can work out, is only a (1/10)^4 of guessing.
The risk at the minute appears to be from people snatching your phone from your hand while it's unlocked and draining bank accounts.
Supposedly if the phone is unlocked, it's easy to side load something that prevents it from locking again, then you can hack your way round the rest of the protections.
I am incredibly wary these days about how much of my life I am giving away if someone snatches my phone out of my hand, especially if unlocked.
Yep I’m very similar to you on this. Presumably the Apple Watch is a better bet then?
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
I am an it techie not a manager....the thought that it wouldnt delete everywhere is risible, anything that leaves your computer and goes via the internet is going to be still existent. This is why us techie guys never put anything on the internet unless it won't bother us when it is uncovered. My it managers are constantly surprised when stuff doesn't work as they think it should too, like the it managers at fujitsu and the post office.
As techie guys are team constantly gets into discussions with our it manager to explain why what he has asked for won't work....we constantly get told we are wrong and implement it as asked for and surprise surprise, sixth months later he is going why is this not working like I thought and we have to explain it to him again
I have a question for all you techies, which is a neat follow up to the Apple discussion.
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
Any advice / comments gratefully received.
xx
Not an Apple fan, I use Android, but yes I use contactless payments for ~99% of all my payments (Tesco pay@pump requires the use of a card annoyingly for the other 1%, Asda allows contactless at the pump). Though I normally use my phone more than my watch.
Its far safer than any other means of payment IMHO. And has no piddly £100 limit unlikely normal contactless so you can do big expenditures on it too, but its more secure doing so on your own secure device than on a card.
Apart from Express Pay (which only works on TfL services), it requires the use of a fingerprint or face. Both infinitely harder to break than a four digit pin which is as far as I can work out, is only a (1/10)^4 of guessing.
The risk at the minute appears to be from people snatching your phone from your hand while it's unlocked and draining bank accounts.
Supposedly if the phone is unlocked, it's easy to side load something that prevents it from locking again, then you can hack your way round the rest of the protections.
I am incredibly wary these days about how much of my life I am giving away if someone snatches my phone out of my hand, especially if unlocked.
Yep I’m very similar to you on this. Presumably the Apple Watch is a better bet then?
I'm not sure, as I don't own a digital watch. But I imagine it depends on whether or not apple pay is enabled as NFC when not directly paired with (ie within bluetooth range of) the iPhone in question.
Labour Manifesto Part 3 Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Create 650k jobs though Green industries.
Double onshore wind, triple solar panel, quadruple offshore win.
Will get Hinkley point c ‘over the line’ new nuclear stations will play a role.
Phased and ‘responsible’ transition in north sea. Not revoke existing licences. Oil and gas for decades to come.
Will close loopholes in the windfall tax – energy profits levy extended to end of next parliament.
Great British Energy Company – partner with industry and unions to deliver clean power – 8.3bn over 5 years.
Scotland to be powerhouse of clean energy mission
Tougher energy regulation
National wealth fund invest in ports, hydrogen, industrial clusters.
British hobs bonus to incentivize firms offering good conditions in marginals (note – actually they say industrial heartlands and coastal areas)
End injustice of mineworkers pension scheme (note – highly specific – what is the injustice?)
66.bn for energy efficiency.
A lot of vague stuff on accelerating net zero.
9 new national reiver walks, 3 new national forests
Water companies in special measures (note – not nationalise though)
Ban trail hunting and puppy smuggling.
Take back our streets
Violence is high, few criminals caught. Community policing has been downgraded, trust in police down, justice grinding to a halt.
‘Thousands’ of extra officers.
Hold ‘companies and executives cashing in on knife crime’ to account (note – I have no idea who is cashing in on this?)
New recruits paid for through efficiency (note – of course!)
Specific offence for assault on shopkeepers (note – why is a new law needed for this? – seems like a gimmick)
Ban ninja swords, zombie style blades.
Early intervention through pupil referral units and youth worker sin A & E.
Fast track rape cases, specialist courts at every crown court
New powers to intervene with failing forces.
Cut trial delays by allowing associate prosecutors to work on cases.
Tories failed to get prisons built – labour will use powers to build them
Hillsborough law
Lot of vague stuff on reducing reoffending and improving collaboration etc
Any more of this and I will publish a manifesto.
Ninja swords are already banned as are a range of knives that almost never get used for hurting people. Most stabbings are undertaken with moderate sized kitchen knives. The ones where the blade is a bit bigger than the handle.
Labour doc. through the door today…. can’t really call it a leaflet. A bit about the candidates views but nothing about her. It has got a bar chart, though, showing, probably correctly, that only the Labour candidate can beat the Tory.
Nothing from any of the others yet. Few Labour posters locally but no others. Positive Facebook post for Labour too. Makes me wonder about putting a small bet on Labour to oust Ms Patel.
National security – Labour founded NATO. ‘Set out path’ to 2.5% GDP on defence. Mentions Skripal poisoning (note – fair to say Corbyn would not have). Martyn’s Law to strengthen security at events. Police to have powers and resources they need (Note – no detail).
Secure borders – Conservatives only offer gimmicks. Rwanda cost hundreds of millions, and won’t work. Labour will go after gangs, new border security command, funded by ending Rwanda. New security agreement with EU. Clear asylum backlog. Fast track removals to safe countries.
Economic Stability – Tory mini budget was a disaster, country paying the price. Limits to what gov can spend, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Chaos not over, Tories have unfunded tax cuts still.
Labour fiscal rule that current budget moves into balance, day to day costs met by revenues. Debt must be falling as share of economy by fifth year (Note – I guarantee this will not happen).
Families struggling. Energy costs will be reduced, food prices reduced. Expand childcare.. Free breakfast clubs in every primary school (note – I think everyone has promised this so far).
No NI increase, VAT increase, of basic, higher or additional income tax increase. Abolish non-dom status. Tackle tax avoidance.
Kickstart economic growth
Includes a pic of a café owner and ‘former conservative voter’.
New approach – securonomics (note – buzzwords are best words!)
New industrial strategy (note – LDs beat them to it)
National wealth fund 7.bn over 5 years
Money for ports, steel industry, gigfactories, green hydrogen
Stability through one fiscal event a year only.
25% corporation tax cap
Replace business rates – same revenue fairer way (note – what does this even mean?)
Bring railways into public ownership, new powers for local bus routes.
Short funding for R and D replaced with ten year budgets (note – if that was possible why aren’t we doing it now?)
Housing crisis – reform NPPF to restore mandatory housing targets (note – this is a good idea), strengthen presumption in favour of sustainable development. Fund additional planning officers through increasing stamp duty surcharge.
“Where necessary” Labour will use intervention powers to build houses we need (note – I don’t believe them, the first backbench rumbles will stop that).
Brownfield first, but not enough on its own (Note – my gods, this is actually a sensible point!) Release lower quality green belt land.
Widen devolution
New statutory local growth plans
Multi year funding settlements for local government.
Labour will reduce net migration – says reform the points based system to be fair (note – in what way?).
National jobs and careers service. Support disabled people into work. Work or apprenticeships for all those under 21.
Legislation on making work pay within 100 days
Minimum wage will be a living wage, but no details.
Whilst I support it, releasing “lower quality green belt” is not exactly a vote winner. That’s the first local elections lost.
Comments
https://x.com/phl43/status/1801279805502914650
Basically, Macron's decision caused the latent divisions in the Republican Party and Reconquête, the National Rally's rivals on its left and on its right respectively, to blow up in the open and it looks as though it will effectively kill those parties, which will mostly benefit the National Rally.
On the left, where one week ago it seemed that any alliance was impossible because the leaders of the centrist wing of the bloc were outraged by the behavior of LFI, the main party on the left and the left wing of that bloc, Macron's decision forced them to make an alliance anyway because if they don't they will be wiped out. So they will run as a relatively strong and unified bloc.
The result is that Ensemble, Macron's alliance in the center, is going to be squeezed between a strong left-wing bloc and a very strong right-wing bloc led by the National Rally. While at the moment this alliance holds a plurality of seat in the Assembly, it will probably be mostly wiped out as a result.
The left-wing bloc will limit the damage and will probably even gain seats, while the National Rally will make huge gains, almost certainly obtaining a plurality of seats in the Assembly and possibly even getting a straight majority. The only real question in my opinion is how big the National Rally's victory will be and in particular whether it will be able to get a majority.
So why did Macron do such a crazy thing? At the end of the day, nobody really knows, but while various more or less plausible strategic calculi are being floated by different people, I increasingly think that he convinced himself that, if he forced French voters to choose between him and the far-left or the far-right, they would choose him.
Is that right? No, it's not, if that's really his calculus then he is completely delusional. His decision will reunify the left and destroy the National Rally's rivals on the right, putting his own movement in a squeeze that will largely destroy it. It seems crazy and therefore people are looking for more complicated explanations, but I really think it's a classic case of hubris gone wrong.
Macron's main impact on French politics was the destruction of the decades-long left-right opposition by creating a centrist bloc that takes away enough votes on the center-left and the center-right to constitute a majority. Ironically, with his decision to call snap elections, he'll recreate that left-right opposition, except that in that new configuration the left-wing bloc will be dominated by the far-left and the right-wing bloc will be dominated by the far-right. It's truly extraordinary.
Free BSE with each serving.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5324221,-1.1385686,86m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Smells as good as it looks.
[BSE Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosper_De_Mulder_Group ]
Beforehand I was going to write: "And that's why we don't vote Reform, folks."
He was logged into his iPhone and his iMac, his wife had access to the latter and the messages were visible on the iMac.
Essentially, he believes in everyone being a spreadsheet wanker and low taxes being the answer to everything.
Lesson to learn.
If anyone accuses me of clickbait/trolling, I will exile those people to ConHome.
He really was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Raikes
Nothing has changed!
Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
Polling lead has bounced around the 20% mark for the last week or so. I guess we might see if the manifesto moves things but my instinct is that it will not.
My instinct, as I've said throughout, is that the Reform surge won't be seen in the actual vote, which will probably help the Conservatives.
But with three weeks to go, and the Euros about to kick off tomorrow, I struggle to see what will change now. The final debate, I guess.
As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.
So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.
Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.
Agree that tight shirts look bad on everyone. Even if you've got a six pack physique, it still looks weird.
*I don't mean to disparage Labour in particular by this - the inevitable result of detail coming out is that people will find things to dislike about it. Would be true of any party.
Other MPs taken in and propagating it without evidence, but protected by parliamentary privilege, were Tom Watson and Zac Goldsmith.
@Cyclefree
I presume short shirts are a sneaky way for manufacturers to save a few cm of material on every shirt but it's bloody irritating. Charles Tyrwhitt used to advertise their shirts as being longer in the body, and they were. But not anymore.
(I assume TSE will be along in a moment to explain which Jermyn Street shirtmaker I should be using, at the cost of a small car per shirt.)
I don’t currently use my Apple Watch for contactless payments on Apple Pay. Do you do so? If so, and in the words of Gandalf, "is it secret? Is it safe?”
Any advice / comments gratefully received.
xx
Casino wears his heart on his sleeve, which is fine. Just take his posts with a pinch of salt.
Its far safer than any other means of payment IMHO. And has no piddly £100 limit unlikely normal contactless so you can do big expenditures on it too, but its more secure doing so on your own secure device than on a card.
I wasn't talking aboiut a county but about a town. And not just over ten years either, but my lifetime. If it gets any bigger then we will end up with the sort of problems you will have when only houses are built without facilities near by. That's already a point of contention.
If this is the way you treat people who are already fairly sympathetic then I'm going to go and vote bloody LD as a result.
2. 100-125 i reckon
3. Yes, but briely. 0-5 seats
4. Flatlining.
5. A 4.
NEW THREAD
“Aliens May Already Live on Earth, Harvard Researchers Say”
https://www.newsweek.com/alien-life-extraterrestrial-living-earth-harvard-1912264
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1801289016819524052
- “Our plan to change Britain” – bland, but clear. The title of the manifesto itself is just ‘Change’, so maybe they added the plan bit because the alleged lack of a plan is the Tory attack line.
- The second page is just a graphic with change written like 200 times – I am sensing a theme
- Large print, easy read, and easy read colour, versions available soon
- 136 pages, the longest manifesto yet. Ugh
- Still no hyperlinking. Double ugh.
- Long foreword before the contents page even – but does have 6 key first steps, which is a good idea, gives a few policies for people to remember without even looking at the rest. It has it at the end as well
- Pictures of leader – At least 35!
- All elections are ultimately ‘Time for Change’ or ‘Don’t risk it’. Labour are back to basics with this title at least.
Foreword- “This election is about change”. Time to restore hope, stop the chaos, turn the page, rebuild our country. Five national missions to rebuild.
- “I know some people will roll their eyes at this last sentence [about serving the country]” – a more personal style than the other manifestos, at least in the intro.
- First steps for change – deliver economic stability, cut NHS waiting times through 40k more appointments a week by cracking down on tax avoidance (note – the gift that never runs dry apparently), new border security command, publicly owned clean power company, crackdown on anti social behaviour, recruit 6.5k new teachers.
- Really strange mix of key first steps.
Mission-driven governmentI luuurve his smile!
Rip that shirt off, I say.
https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1800645981060432123
Is that something you saw on Star Trek or something?
AND
SHAG STARMER
Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/
Supposedly if the phone is unlocked, it's easy to side load something that prevents it from locking again, then you can hack your way round the rest of the protections.
I am incredibly wary these days about how much of my life I am giving away if someone snatches my phone out of my hand, especially if unlocked.
Strong foundations
- National security – Labour founded NATO. ‘Set out path’ to 2.5% GDP on defence. Mentions Skripal poisoning (note – fair to say Corbyn would not have). Martyn’s Law to strengthen security at events. Police to have powers and resources they need (Note – no detail).
- Secure borders – Conservatives only offer gimmicks. Rwanda cost hundreds of millions, and won’t work. Labour will go after gangs, new border security command, funded by ending Rwanda. New security agreement with EU. Clear asylum backlog. Fast track removals to safe countries.
- Economic Stability – Tory mini budget was a disaster, country paying the price. Limits to what gov can spend, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Chaos not over, Tories have unfunded tax cuts still.
- Labour fiscal rule that current budget moves into balance, day to day costs met by revenues. Debt must be falling as share of economy by fifth year (Note – I guarantee this will not happen).
- Families struggling. Energy costs will be reduced, food prices reduced. Expand childcare.. Free breakfast clubs in every primary school (note – I think everyone has promised this so far).
- No NI increase, VAT increase, of basic, higher or additional income tax increase. Abolish non-dom status. Tackle tax avoidance.
Kickstart economic growthMake Britain a clean energy superpower
- Create 650k jobs though Green industries.
- Double onshore wind, triple solar panel, quadruple offshore win.
- Will get Hinkley point c ‘over the line’ new nuclear stations will play a role.
- Phased and ‘responsible’ transition in north sea. Not revoke existing licences. Oil and gas for decades to come.
- Will close loopholes in the windfall tax – energy profits levy extended to end of next parliament.
- Great British Energy Company – partner with industry and unions to deliver clean power – 8.3bn over 5 years.
- Scotland to be powerhouse of clean energy mission
- Tougher energy regulation
- National wealth fund invest in ports, hydrogen, industrial clusters.
- British hobs bonus to incentivize firms offering good conditions in marginals (note – actually they say industrial heartlands and coastal areas)
- End injustice of mineworkers pension scheme (note – highly specific – what is the injustice?)
- 66.bn for energy efficiency.
- A lot of vague stuff on accelerating net zero.
- 9 new national reiver walks, 3 new national forests
- Water companies in special measures (note – not nationalise though)
- Ban trail hunting and puppy smuggling.
Take back our streetsI can't find anything beyond the pledges to leave corporation tax, income tax, VAT and NI rates unchanged. Is there anything else that I'm missing? I can't find anything that explicitly rules out rises in CGT, the introduction of wealth taxes, or reform of council tax, for example. There appears to be a plan to replace business rates and I'm wondering if the pledge to raise the same revenues in a different way might just shift into an opportunity to rinse the likes of Amazon for a lot more, little high street independents for a little less, and increase the net take?
Anyway, I suppose we'll find out in the Autumn whether Reeves is going to stick to the 'solving all our problems through growth alone' schtick, or deploy the 'OMG the books are even worse than we thought' excuse, and deploy a suite of tax hikes. We know perfectly well that if taxes aren't raised significantly and the promised boom fails to materialise PDQ, the no return to austerity pledge will end up in the dustbin.
As techie guys are team constantly gets into discussions with our it manager to explain why what he has asked for won't work....we constantly get told we are wrong and implement it as asked for and surprise surprise, sixth months later he is going why is this not working like I thought and we have to explain it to him again
Ninja swords are already banned as are a range of knives that almost never get used for hurting people. Most stabbings are undertaken with moderate sized kitchen knives. The ones where the blade is a bit bigger than the handle.
It has got a bar chart, though, showing, probably correctly, that only the Labour candidate can beat the Tory.
Nothing from any of the others yet. Few Labour posters locally but no others. Positive Facebook post for Labour too.
Makes me wonder about putting a small bet on Labour to oust Ms Patel.