We all know that there isn't enough housing for all the immigrants allowed to migrate to London.
But there isn't even the excuse that there are jobs that need filling.
That's a strange interpretation. Low unemployment typically means that there is a tight labour market, and that there are plenty of jobs that need to be filled.
If you're talking about the difference between the NE and London, that's almost certainly a difference in structural unemployment. London, being a dynamic city with lots of young people, will have more people working on short-term contracts/gig economy, and therefore more people between jobs.
According to the ONS 33.2% of the people in Kensington & Chelsea are Economically Inactive.
Bloody slackers.
(And that's not an outlier either - last year was 35%.
Don't tell Sky News.)
Retired people and inheritance
It's a high figure if it only includes 16-64 as Eabhal has just confirmed.
Civil servants and military officers retiring at 60 or earlier.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
As Stodge says there are huge differences across London.
And confirmed by the levels of unemployment by constituency:
Do you really think the over 9k unemployed in Tottenham or the more than 8k unemployed in both East Ham and West Ham is explainable by students at UCL or the LSE ?
What we have in parts of London, and likewise in inner city Birmingham and Bradford, are high levels of structural unemployment.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
As Stodge says there are huge differences across London.
And confirmed by the levels of unemployment by constituency:
Do you really think the over 9k unemployed in Tottenham or the more than 8k unemployed in both East Ham and West Ham is explainable by students at UCL or the LSE ?
What we have in parts of London, and likewise in inner city Birmingham and Bradford, are high levels of structural unemployment.
Although I did live in both Tottenham and East Ham whilst at LSE.
No one will be prepared to travel to America for work shortly:
A French scientist was denied entry to the US after immigration officials found text messages that were critical of Donald Trump which they said “could be considered to be terrorism”.
The researcher, who has not been named, was on his way to a conference in Houston, Texas, when officers pulled him aside for a random check and searched his work computer and personal phone, the French newspaper Le Monde reported.
Telegraph
Again, I would issue caution. This all comes from a single source and on their side that has been then transcribed across all the media. They pulled him, it is said by random (they don't generally pull people like that as they already have more than enough people to investigate, they might say that, but it is because their is some warning on their system*). But, it says they found "hateful and conspiratorial messages" (not just Trump related) and was informed that he had been under investigation from the FBI (so that is probably why he was pulled).
* I have told the story of Mrs U getting pulled just like this. And it was because there was somebody with same name / very similar DOB, that was flagged.
I wouldn't be shocked if it is the same case here.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
As Stodge says there are huge differences across London.
And confirmed by the levels of unemployment by constituency:
Do you really think the over 9k unemployed in Tottenham or the more than 8k unemployed in both East Ham and West Ham is explainable by students at UCL or the LSE ?
What we have in parts of London, and likewise in inner city Birmingham and Bradford, are high levels of structural unemployment.
I think that rate (9%) is perfectly consistent with London being a dynamic city with lots of young people working temp jobs etc. The number of young people claiming unemployment is 3x the national average. Remember that you cannot claim UC if you have savings over £16,000, so older and richer workers won't show up in those stats.
(I made a mistake earlier when I said "structural" unemployment. I meant frictional unemployment).
No one will be prepared to travel to America for work shortly:
A French scientist was denied entry to the US after immigration officials found text messages that were critical of Donald Trump which they said “could be considered to be terrorism”.
The researcher, who has not been named, was on his way to a conference in Houston, Texas, when officers pulled him aside for a random check and searched his work computer and personal phone, the French newspaper Le Monde reported.
Telegraph
Again, I would issue caution. This all comes from a single source and on their side that has been then transcribed across all the media. They pulled him, it is said by random (they don't generally pull people like that as they already have more than enough people to investigate, they might say that, but it is because their is some warning on their system*). But, it says they found "hateful and conspiratorial messages" (not just Trump related) and was informed that he had been under investigation from the FBI (so that is probably why he was pulled).
* I have told the story of Mrs U getting pulled just like this. And it was because there was somebody with same name / very similar DOB, that was flagged.
I wouldn't be shocked if it is the same case here.
The German government backed their citizen who got detained...who is turns out has a criminal past.
As I say, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a case of mistaken identity. Without doxxing Mrs U, she fits in exactly the same bucket as his guy. There was no media outrage when she got detained. It happens all the time with US immigration officials.
Re the stories of US immigration....I can do the same the media is doing.
Leading Travel YouTuber detained at US airport and deported. Immigration officials raised concerns about his social media postings. The YouTuber claims he doesn't know the real reason for his deportation, is a regular visitor to the US and has no criminal convictions.
True story...under Biden. Simon Wilson is a guy on YouTube with several million followers and was banned from entry to the US for I think 3 years. It appears when they finally got to the bottom of it with legal representation, some immigration official didn't like the fact he had travelled to a couple of "high risk" countries.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
As Stodge says there are huge differences across London.
And confirmed by the levels of unemployment by constituency:
Do you really think the over 9k unemployed in Tottenham or the more than 8k unemployed in both East Ham and West Ham is explainable by students at UCL or the LSE ?
What we have in parts of London, and likewise in inner city Birmingham and Bradford, are high levels of structural unemployment.
Yes, it’s more complex and nuanced. The people actively looking for work aren’t always unemployed - they are simply looking for extra money. Students had jobs even when I was at University with Martin Luther and his worm related diet.
As for those who are unemployed, some might very well be claiming while working in the black economy. As for others, we know there are a core of people who would rather be unemployed and claiming than work. We also know unemployment rates among those with disabilities are much higher than among the able bodied.
I’d also add there are no doubt people who don’t work and who don’t claim either and live within their community subsisting on cash-in-hand work.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
The US government is now protecting Putin from war crimes prosecution?
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
As Stodge says there are huge differences across London.
And confirmed by the levels of unemployment by constituency:
Do you really think the over 9k unemployed in Tottenham or the more than 8k unemployed in both East Ham and West Ham is explainable by students at UCL or the LSE ?
What we have in parts of London, and likewise in inner city Birmingham and Bradford, are high levels of structural unemployment.
Although I did live in both Tottenham and East Ham whilst at LSE.
I lived in Dalston (Hackney), Whitechapel (Tower Hamlets) and Kennington (Lambeth) while studying at the LSE and so would have been counted as economically inactive, in areas with high minority populations. It's important not to fall into the trap of using statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
Good morning everyone!
My grandson's student girl-friend has two (part-time) jobs, as well as her studies. Cost of living in London, she says.
Before anyone asks, I don't know how she does it, either. She has a lot of reading to do, he says, but seems to spend time round at his as well.
All the students I know of in London (my daughter, her friends, family friends etc) have as much employment as they can find.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
I see you missed the bit where I wrote "destroyed when ordered"
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
Fuck off William, I have it on good authority from somebody inside the FCO that the data has been deleted.
Your shilling for Trump used to be amusing in parts but now that he is facilitating the death of Ukrainians your spin is shameful as it is disgusting.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
The US government is now protecting Putin from war crimes prosecution?
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
I see you missed the bit where I wrote "destroyed when ordered"
Speaking at a daily press briefing, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said suggestions that data was deleted were false.
"The data exists," Bruce said. "It was not in the State Department's control. It was the people running that framework, but we know who is running the data and the website, and we know fully that the data exists and it's not been deleted and it's not missing."
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
You are descending into Musk-like conspiracy theories, here, william. You present no evidence for your claims, because there is no evidence for your claims. Try to stick with reality.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
Your first q, the DOGE habit is to destroy things to make recovery impossible. The record is to create facts on the ground despite the law which requires certain processes to be followed.
In the case of USAID, they started vacating the building.
Why on earth would such data not exist? What a bizarre question.
The EU can’t help themselves. They believe there is an existential threat to them from Russia so are trying to improve their defensive capabilities and one of the potential partners who could massively increase these capabilities is told “you cannot benefit from this unless you sign up to our rules, but btw please will you help us at your cost.”
They should be saying “let’s work together - if you build kit we need we will buy it and if we build kit you need you can buy it. We will happily shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by you and France at your costs and so think it’s only day to treat you as a friend and partner.”
The UK chose to leave. It's not surprising that they aren't going to get a sniff of the EU €150bn SAFE fund.
Yep. Expecting the EU to buy loads of weapons off us after we have left seems a bit like having cake and eating it too.
The reason the EU wants to build more weapons is that the USA has become very politically unreliable. Countries within the EU are more reliable, as there is a political structure there. If they go with us, they risk the same thing happening as happened with the US.
I expect they will buy stuff off us, especially individual countries, but we can't really whinge about them not doing.
From their perspective, we are politically unreliable.
I agree. And we need to adopt the same approach. We should not enter any agreement with the EU or EU countries or companies where a comparable UK supplier can be found or created. It would be the height of folly to have realised (belatedly) that being a branch of the US defence aparatus doesn't leave the UK in a good position defence-wise, only to repeat the same mistake with another country or set of countries with their own interests to serve, often in opposition to ours, and their own democracies that might elect Governments we don't agree with.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
Good morning everyone!
My grandson's student girl-friend has two (part-time) jobs, as well as her studies. Cost of living in London, she says.
Before anyone asks, I don't know how she does it, either. She has a lot of reading to do, he says, but seems to spend time round at his as well.
When does she graduate to being a full girlfriend?
The EU can’t help themselves. They believe there is an existential threat to them from Russia so are trying to improve their defensive capabilities and one of the potential partners who could massively increase these capabilities is told “you cannot benefit from this unless you sign up to our rules, but btw please will you help us at your cost.”
They should be saying “let’s work together - if you build kit we need we will buy it and if we build kit you need you can buy it. We will happily shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by you and France at your costs and so think it’s only day to treat you as a friend and partner.”
The other point about requiring us to buy in before they order anything from the UK is that - quite sensibly in view of what has happened in Ukraine - they won't buy any kit from countries which have "design authority" and are outside of the European security agreement, since its future use might be restricted.
Remember the hassle getting (variously) the US, Germany, and Switzerland to agree to the use of various bits of kit in Ukraine ?
Of course there's a lot more cash outside of the 150bn EU fund to be spent - but it's not unlikely that similar (though not formal) considerations might apply,
We all know that there isn't enough housing for all the immigrants allowed to migrate to London.
But there isn't even the excuse that there are jobs that need filling.
That's a strange interpretation. Low unemployment typically means that there is a tight labour market, and that there are plenty of jobs that need to be filled.
If you're talking about the difference between the NE and London, that's almost certainly a difference in structural unemployment. London, being a dynamic city with lots of young people, will have more people working on short-term contracts/gig economy, and therefore more people between jobs.
According to the ONS 33.2% of the people in Kensington & Chelsea are Economically Inactive.
Bloody slackers.
(And that's not an outlier either - last year was 35%.
Don't tell Sky News.)
Does that include retired people?
Age bounds are 16-64 for that stat, applied to the standard definition.
"Economically inactive
People who are neither in employment nor unemployed. This group includes, for example, all those who were looking after a home or retired.
Wanting a job
People not in employment who want a job but are not classed as unemployed because they have either not sought work in the last four weeks or are not available to start work.
Not wanting a job
People who are neither in employment nor unemployed and who do not want a job."
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
As Stodge says there are huge differences across London.
And confirmed by the levels of unemployment by constituency:
Do you really think the over 9k unemployed in Tottenham or the more than 8k unemployed in both East Ham and West Ham is explainable by students at UCL or the LSE ?
What we have in parts of London, and likewise in inner city Birmingham and Bradford, are high levels of structural unemployment.
Although I did live in both Tottenham and East Ham whilst at LSE.
I lived in Dalston (Hackney), Whitechapel (Tower Hamlets) and Kennington (Lambeth) while studying at the LSE and so would have been counted as economically inactive, in areas with high minority populations. It's important not to fall into the trap of using statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.
It was interesting last year, at the hieght of the 'economically inactive' hyping, to see the actual catagories which counted towards the headline 9 million number. Some of them clearly, to my mind, should not be included.
27% of them are students - which, since the headline number is 16-64 includes all those aged 16-18 who, by law, now have to be in some form of education.
18% of them are housewives/househusbands.
11% of them are retired
11% of them are other - including those who do not need to work due to independent wealth.
So the claim of 9 million economically inactive -implying as it does those who should be in work but are not - is misleading in the extreme.
At top line: 2.4m students 1.4m unemployed 2.6m sick 1.7m carers (overwhelmingly women) 1.2m retired 1.0m inactive but none of the above
If you're a stay-at-home Mum (or Dad), or housewife/husband, what category do you come under? "Inactive but none of the above" or "Carer"?
Well over half of number of carers are in the 25-49 age range, 90% of whom are women. Though not said explicitly how people are counted, I think that does answer the question.
We all know that there isn't enough housing for all the immigrants allowed to migrate to London.
But there isn't even the excuse that there are jobs that need filling.
That's a strange interpretation. Low unemployment typically means that there is a tight labour market, and that there are plenty of jobs that need to be filled.
If you're talking about the difference between the NE and London, that's almost certainly a difference in structural unemployment. London, being a dynamic city with lots of young people, will have more people working on short-term contracts/gig economy, and therefore more people between jobs.
According to the ONS 33.2% of the people in Kensington & Chelsea are Economically Inactive.
Bloody slackers.
(And that's not an outlier either - last year was 35%.
Don't tell Sky News.)
Retired people and inheritance
I'm interested that the numbers are higher, and more reliable *two consecutive years), than the single year Ashfield figure (with 22.9% in the previous year, and 23.0% in the following year), and Sky News choose to hang a baseless "backwards Ashfield" story on that, but not on K&C.
I'm really making a modest complaint about on our lazy, shitty, amateurish media being ... lazy, shitty and amaterish. It's the default.
It's like if you want attention for a protest you make sure it is within 2 hours of Central London, so the journos can get there, get a story, get back, file it, and be down the Wine Bar by the close of working hours.
The same lesson that the Aldermaston Anti-Nuclear marchers learnt between 1958 when they started in London and went to Aldermaston, and 1959 and onwards, when they did it in the other direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldermaston_Marches
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
There has been regular reporting of the destruction of records by DOGE, in numerous instances. As I'm sure you're well aware. Malice and obfuscation are rather more likely from that source.
How could DOGE have access to Yale University's data in order to delete it? It's not a credible story on any level.
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
There has been regular reporting of the destruction of records by DOGE, in numerous instances. As I'm sure you're well aware. Malice and obfuscation are rather more likely from that source.
How could DOGE have access to Yale University's data in order to delete it? It's not a credible story on any level.
We'll see.
I think you are a long way down the rabbit hole.
It’s interesting that William is more outraged by this story than say Trump and Vance’s action which have led to the deaths of many Ukrainians.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
There has been regular reporting of the destruction of records by DOGE, in numerous instances. As I'm sure you're well aware. Malice and obfuscation are rather more likely from that source.
How could DOGE have access to Yale University's data in order to delete it? It's not a credible story on any level.
Threats and intimidation. "Get rid of this data or you are fired / your department's funding goes." Or get someone within Yale who agrees with DOGE's objectives.
You seem to be under the curious misconception that DOGE is just a harmless attempt to reduce 'waste'. It isn't. It's ideological. In fact, it's far mor ideological than either DEI or woke. And far, far worse.
The EU can’t help themselves. They believe there is an existential threat to them from Russia so are trying to improve their defensive capabilities and one of the potential partners who could massively increase these capabilities is told “you cannot benefit from this unless you sign up to our rules, but btw please will you help us at your cost.”
They should be saying “let’s work together - if you build kit we need we will buy it and if we build kit you need you can buy it. We will happily shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by you and France at your costs and so think it’s only day to treat you as a friend and partner.”
The other point about requiring us to buy in before they order anything from the UK is that - quite sensibly in view of what has happened in Ukraine - they won't buy any kit from countries which have "design authority" and are outside of the European security agreement, since its future use might be restricted.
Remember the hassle getting (variously) the US, Germany, and Switzerland to agree to the use of various bits of kit in Ukraine ?
Of course there's a lot more cash outside of the 150bn EU fund to be spent - but it's not unlikely that similar (though not formal) considerations might apply,
I was opposed to Brexit because the EU was the only show in town in Europe. It's even more the only show in town now NATO no longer functions. The EU may or may not succeed as a replacement coordinator for European security to NATO. But if it doesn't, there isn't a plausible alternative to it.
This EU funding arrangement is half baked and probably needs to be rethought. Hopefully it will be.
Surely one of the reasons for the high London unemployment figure is the sheer number of people who work in London but commute in. When I worked at a depot on the underground over half the office staff commuted in.
Isn’t the figure a reflection of London based residents rather than London economic activity ?
Surely one of the reasons for the high London unemployment figure is the sheer number of people who work in London but commute in. When I worked at a depot on the underground over half the office staff commuted in.
Isn’t the figure a reflection of London based residents rather than London economic activity ?
Perhaps London should impose a kind of Brexit, so that the locals get the jobs by not being undercut by outsiders.
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
In economics, there is a long running categorisation of activity as “Socialised” when it is indirectly controlled by the Government. Regulatory burden is a classic for this.
Given the habit of government creating regulatory burdens, this simply makes sense.
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
I suspect that everyone has a job that is reliant on the state in one shape or form. If there was no state I wouldn't have received an education and quite likely wouldn't have survived my birth, there would be no roads for me to cycle to work on, I'd have to stay at home to defend my property from criminals or invading Russians etc etc.
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
It's a set of moral judgements from a freemarket think tank masquerading as objective data.
People who get £££ on child-care subsidy are not included as "dependent on the state" for example, despite them being able to get the best part of £20k per annum for 2 children, and so on.
The objective is to set up groups they like as OK, and define groups they do not like as Not OK.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
There has been regular reporting of the destruction of records by DOGE, in numerous instances. As I'm sure you're well aware. Malice and obfuscation are rather more likely from that source.
How could DOGE have access to Yale University's data in order to delete it? It's not a credible story on any level.
Threats and intimidation. "Get rid of this data or you are fired / your department's funding goes." Or get someone within Yale who agrees with DOGE's objectives.
You seem to be under the curious misconception that DOGE is just a harmless attempt to reduce 'waste'. It isn't. It's ideological. In fact, it's far mor ideological than either DEI or woke. And far, far worse.
There’s a lot of malice and resentment, driving DOGE. In part, resentment that the natural order of things was overturned in 1865.
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
In economics, there is a long running categorisation of activity as “Socialised” when it is indirectly controlled by the Government. Regulatory burden is a classic for this.
Given the habit of government creating regulatory burdens, this simply makes sense.
There are jobs that are indirectly controlled by government, but these jobs aren't generally that. You need HR personnel if you have lots of employees. You need someone to manage job adverts, onboarding, holiday requests, sick leave etc., irrespective of government regulation. The ASI are just inflating figures for shock value.
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
In economics, there is a long running categorisation of activity as “Socialised” when it is indirectly controlled by the Government. Regulatory burden is a classic for this.
Given the habit of government creating regulatory burdens, this simply makes sense.
There are jobs that are indirectly controlled by government, but these jobs aren't generally that. You need HR personnel if you have lots of employees. You need someone to manage job adverts, onboarding, holiday requests, sick leave etc., irrespective of government regulation. The ASI are just inflating figures for shock value.
The regulatory burden is real. And if it is not counted, the politicians will carry on adding to it, without regard for consequences.
At top line: 2.4m students 1.4m unemployed 2.6m sick 1.7m carers (overwhelmingly women) 1.2m retired 1.0m inactive but none of the above
1.2m retired? Mr Google tells me there were 12.7 million people over 65 in the UK. The idea that "90% of all people over 65 are still working" is facially implausible.
The EU can’t help themselves. They believe there is an existential threat to them from Russia so are trying to improve their defensive capabilities and one of the potential partners who could massively increase these capabilities is told “you cannot benefit from this unless you sign up to our rules, but btw please will you help us at your cost.”
They should be saying “let’s work together - if you build kit we need we will buy it and if we build kit you need you can buy it. We will happily shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by you and France at your costs and so think it’s only day to treat you as a friend and partner.”
The UK chose to leave. It's not surprising that they aren't going to get a sniff of the EU €150bn SAFE fund.
Yep. Expecting the EU to buy loads of weapons off us after we have left seems a bit like having cake and eating it too.
The reason the EU wants to build more weapons is that the USA has become very politically unreliable. Countries within the EU are more reliable, as there is a political structure there. If they go with us, they risk the same thing happening as happened with the US.
I expect they will buy stuff off us, especially individual countries, but we can't really whinge about them not doing.
From their perspective, we are politically unreliable.
I agree. And we need to adopt the same approach. We should not enter any agreement with the EU or EU countries or companies where a comparable UK supplier can be found or created. It would be the height of folly to have realised (belatedly) that being a branch of the US defence aparatus doesn't leave the UK in a good position defence-wise, only to repeat the same mistake with another country or set of countries with their own interests to serve, often in opposition to ours, and their own democracies that might elect Governments we don't agree with.
Realistically though scale does matter in some cases. So the choice will be EU or US. Right now EU looks a lot more reliable to me.
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
At top line: 2.4m students 1.4m unemployed 2.6m sick 1.7m carers (overwhelmingly women) 1.2m retired 1.0m inactive but none of the above
1.2m retired? Mr Google tells me there were 12.7 million people over 65 in the UK. The idea that "90% of all people over 65 are still working" is facially implausible.
I took that to be 1.2m retired early, ahead of their statutory pension date.
At top line: 2.4m students 1.4m unemployed 2.6m sick 1.7m carers (overwhelmingly women) 1.2m retired 1.0m inactive but none of the above
1.2m retired? Mr Google tells me there were 12.7 million people over 65 in the UK. The idea that "90% of all people over 65 are still working" is facially implausible.
This is for working age people. So 1.2mn retired below 65yo.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
There has been regular reporting of the destruction of records by DOGE, in numerous instances. As I'm sure you're well aware. Malice and obfuscation are rather more likely from that source.
How could DOGE have access to Yale University's data in order to delete it? It's not a credible story on any level.
Threats and intimidation. "Get rid of this data or you are fired / your department's funding goes." Or get someone within Yale who agrees with DOGE's objectives.
You seem to be under the curious misconception that DOGE is just a harmless attempt to reduce 'waste'. It isn't. It's ideological. In fact, it's far mor ideological than either DEI or woke. And far, far worse.
There’s a lot of malice and resentment, driving DOGE. In part, resentment that the natural order of things was overturned in 1865.
[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.
At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. …
Today's Zeihan considers whether Christian Ultranationalism is a better explanation than Russian infiltration for the current Trumpstallnacht. Zeihan shakes the 8-ball and goes "hmmm"
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
Have you ever even been to London? It is full of incredibly ambitious young people, often immigrants or children of immigrants. My daughter attended a state sixth form college that sends more kids to Oxbridge than Eton. Most of the kids there are from ethnic minorities (including my daughter, who is now at Oxford doing a maths degree). The idea that London is full of lazy brown people sitting around spending other people's money is a laughable fiction - the energy and ambition of London keeps the rest of the country afloat.
London and the rest of the country would both be happier with an independent London city state!
The EU can’t help themselves. They believe there is an existential threat to them from Russia so are trying to improve their defensive capabilities and one of the potential partners who could massively increase these capabilities is told “you cannot benefit from this unless you sign up to our rules, but btw please will you help us at your cost.”
They should be saying “let’s work together - if you build kit we need we will buy it and if we build kit you need you can buy it. We will happily shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by you and France at your costs and so think it’s only day to treat you as a friend and partner.”
The UK chose to leave. It's not surprising that they aren't going to get a sniff of the EU €150bn SAFE fund.
Yep. Expecting the EU to buy loads of weapons off us after we have left seems a bit like having cake and eating it too.
The reason the EU wants to build more weapons is that the USA has become very politically unreliable. Countries within the EU are more reliable, as there is a political structure there. If they go with us, they risk the same thing happening as happened with the US.
I expect they will buy stuff off us, especially individual countries, but we can't really whinge about them not doing.
From their perspective, we are politically unreliable.
I agree. And we need to adopt the same approach. We should not enter any agreement with the EU or EU countries or companies where a comparable UK supplier can be found or created. It would be the height of folly to have realised (belatedly) that being a branch of the US defence aparatus doesn't leave the UK in a good position defence-wise, only to repeat the same mistake with another country or set of countries with their own interests to serve, often in opposition to ours, and their own democracies that might elect Governments we don't agree with.
At present it is EU, EFTA and countries with "Security and Defence Partnerships", which is:
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
Has Hillary produced her alibi yet?
No, and neither has Penelope Keith.
Mocking and criticising the Reagans, Clintons, and Bushes now seems ridiculously self-indulgent.
At top line: 2.4m students 1.4m unemployed 2.6m sick 1.7m carers (overwhelmingly women) 1.2m retired 1.0m inactive but none of the above
1.2m retired? Mr Google tells me there were 12.7 million people over 65 in the UK. The idea that "90% of all people over 65 are still working" is facially implausible.
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
Has Hillary produced her alibi yet?
No, and neither has Penelope Keith.
So you are saying it is perhaps an international conspiracy involving the UK landed gentry? Worthy of more investigation. Was Kennedy about to suggest to the UK govt to introduce inheritance tax on farms perhaps?
At top line: 2.4m students 1.4m unemployed 2.6m sick 1.7m carers (overwhelmingly women) 1.2m retired 1.0m inactive but none of the above
1.2m retired? Mr Google tells me there were 12.7 million people over 65 in the UK. The idea that "90% of all people over 65 are still working" is facially implausible.
This is for working age people. So 1.2mn retired below 65yo.
At top line: 2.4m students 1.4m unemployed 2.6m sick 1.7m carers (overwhelmingly women) 1.2m retired 1.0m inactive but none of the above
1.2m retired? Mr Google tells me there were 12.7 million people over 65 in the UK. The idea that "90% of all people over 65 are still working" is facially implausible.
I took that to be 1.2m retired early, ahead of their statutory pension date.
There will be many more of these hallucinations; the companies responsible (*) should have clear ways of 'fixing' the data and of recompensing the affected. But as the article shows, that isn't easy...
(*) Actually, who are showing a lack of responsibility...
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
Has Hillary produced her alibi yet?
No, and neither has Penelope Keith.
So you are saying it is perhaps an international conspiracy involving the UK landed gentry? Worthy of more investigation. Was Kennedy about to suggest to the UK govt to introduce inheritance tax on farms perhaps?
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
Have you ever even been to London? It is full of incredibly ambitious young people, often immigrants or children of immigrants. My daughter attended a state sixth form college that sends more kids to Oxbridge than Eton. Most of the kids there are from ethnic minorities (including my daughter, who is now at Oxford doing a maths degree). The idea that London is full of lazy brown people sitting around spending other people's money is a laughable fiction - the energy and ambition of London keeps the rest of the country afloat.
London and the rest of the country would both be happier with an independent London city state!
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
In economics, there is a long running categorisation of activity as “Socialised” when it is indirectly controlled by the Government. Regulatory burden is a classic for this.
Given the habit of government creating regulatory burdens, this simply makes sense.
There are jobs that are indirectly controlled by government, but these jobs aren't generally that. You need HR personnel if you have lots of employees. You need someone to manage job adverts, onboarding, holiday requests, sick leave etc., irrespective of government regulation. The ASI are just inflating figures for shock value.
The regulatory burden is real. And if it is not counted, the politicians will carry on adding to it, without regard for consequences.
There is, of course, a regulatory burden. There is, of course, a balance around how much and what regulation is appropriate. You make a weirdly sweeping statement about politicians at a time when the official opposition party is constantly going on about cutting regulation and the Government is explicitly seeking to cut regulation.
That all notwithstanding, the ASI coming up with bogus figures for who is reliant on the state for their income isn't advancing a sensible discussion on regulation, is it?
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
In economics, there is a long running categorisation of activity as “Socialised” when it is indirectly controlled by the Government. Regulatory burden is a classic for this.
Given the habit of government creating regulatory burdens, this simply makes sense.
There are jobs that are indirectly controlled by government, but these jobs aren't generally that. You need HR personnel if you have lots of employees. You need someone to manage job adverts, onboarding, holiday requests, sick leave etc., irrespective of government regulation. The ASI are just inflating figures for shock value.
The regulatory burden is real. And if it is not counted, the politicians will carry on adding to it, without regard for consequences.
While that is true, most regulations have been introduced as a response to a tragedy or public pressure to resolve something. Simply scrapping them without thought doesn't really help and will likely result in more regulation again in the future.
Take the Building Safety Act in response to Grenfell. Yes, you could scrap the bureaucracy but if you don't replace the measures with something else, or some action, then you are at risk of another Grenfell.
Scrapping things without thought or concern for the consequence is the DOGE approach and is already being found out as being stupid.
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
Has Hillary produced her alibi yet?
No, and neither has Penelope Keith.
Mocking and criticising the Reagans, Clintons, and Bushes now seems ridiculously self-indulgent.
They all meant well and did their best. We don't have that anymore.
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
Yes, there is no reasonable doubt. There's no shortage of genuine mystery in our world and universe. No need to fabricate it.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
I don't know the veracity of the story, but if we had a project cancelled then we would absolutely delete the data. Carrying sensitive data poses risks to the participants (and the institution). If the research has been cancelled then the benefits (research outputs) that justify those risks are gone and we'd securely delete the data ASAP.
In 1996, Congress created the "Alien Terrorist Removal Court" to provide expedited (and secrecy-protecting) procedures for removing non-citizen terrorism suspects based on classified information.
And yet, even *that* statute, which has never been used, requires judicial review...
It’s striking to contrast the review that statute specifically requires with the Trump administration's arguments that it can summarily remove (with no judicial review whatsoever) anyone it simply claims to be a Venezuelan member of Tren de Aragua:
Surely one of the reasons for the high London unemployment figure is the sheer number of people who work in London but commute in. When I worked at a depot on the underground over half the office staff commuted in.
Isn’t the figure a reflection of London based residents rather than London economic activity ?
Perhaps London should impose a kind of Brexit, so that the locals get the jobs by not being undercut by outsiders.
Yes, I’m sure that would help drive economic growth and prosperity in London.👍
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
Has Hillary produced her alibi yet?
No, and neither has Penelope Keith.
Mocking and criticising the Reagans, Clintons, and Bushes now seems ridiculously self-indulgent.
Mocking and criticism are a healthy part of a functioning democracy imo, not self indulgent. Just because they are miles, almost infinitely, better than Trump doesn't mean they shouldn't have faced cricitism or indeed a bit of mockery from time to time.
Tesla is recalling 46,096 Cybertruck vehicles in the US over an exterior panel that can detach while driving, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said reut.rs/4bHXpnS
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
I don't know the veracity of the story, but if we had a project cancelled then we would absolutely delete the data. Carrying sensitive data poses risks to the participants (and the institution). If the research has been cancelled then the benefits (research outputs) that justify those risks are gone and we'd securely delete the data ASAP.
Isn't there a GDPR duty to do so? I know that's not the US, but it illustrates the point.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
I don't know the veracity of the story, but if we had a project cancelled then we would absolutely delete the data. Carrying sensitive data poses risks to the participants (and the institution). If the research has been cancelled then the benefits (research outputs) that justify those risks are gone and we'd securely delete the data ASAP.
Isn't there a GDPR duty to do so? I know that's not the US, but it illustrates the point.
Indeed, here. If the study is canned, the legal basis evaporates if relying on one of the non-consent bases. If consented, that's also gone if the study for which the consent exists no longer exists (may be some legal wriggle room on that if the consent allowed for archiving after study end, but in reality the institution would want the data gone asap)
Surely one of the reasons for the high London unemployment figure is the sheer number of people who work in London but commute in. When I worked at a depot on the underground over half the office staff commuted in.
Isn’t the figure a reflection of London based residents rather than London economic activity ?
Perhaps London should impose a kind of Brexit, so that the locals get the jobs by not being undercut by outsiders.
Yes, I’m sure that would help drive economic growth and prosperity in London.👍
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
Have you ever even been to London? It is full of incredibly ambitious young people, often immigrants or children of immigrants. My daughter attended a state sixth form college that sends more kids to Oxbridge than Eton. Most of the kids there are from ethnic minorities (including my daughter, who is now at Oxford doing a maths degree). The idea that London is full of lazy brown people sitting around spending other people's money is a laughable fiction - the energy and ambition of London keeps the rest of the country afloat.
London and the rest of the country would both be happier with an independent London city state!
Indeed. We give them money, and they hate us.
that's a bit weird.
I don't really think about London but if you mention the flow of money the first thing that comes to mind is treasury infrastructure investment.
And don't make me come up with a list, you won't like it.
Why on earth does anyone think anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK?
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
My view is that LHO killed JFK; and probably did so alone. However, the ease with which LHO was dispatched before he could say much gives a genuine opening to all the conspiracy theories. From the point of view of today it is almost impossible to believe that such an important suspect was placed in a position where he could be killed and thus silenced so easily without there being a reason.
Incidentally, I was 8, nearly 9 on the Friday it happened and it is one of my earliest political memories. I remember a TV programme being interrupted with news flashes (Emergency Ward 10), the American boy at my London primary school school reading the lesson (Ecclesiastes) at assembly the Monday after, my older brother giving me gory details of the photo in the Daily Mirror (I was not allowed to see it) of Jack Ruby's bullet entering LHO.
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
In economics, there is a long running categorisation of activity as “Socialised” when it is indirectly controlled by the Government. Regulatory burden is a classic for this.
Given the habit of government creating regulatory burdens, this simply makes sense.
There are jobs that are indirectly controlled by government, but these jobs aren't generally that. You need HR personnel if you have lots of employees. You need someone to manage job adverts, onboarding, holiday requests, sick leave etc., irrespective of government regulation. The ASI are just inflating figures for shock value.
The regulatory burden is real. And if it is not counted, the politicians will carry on adding to it, without regard for consequences.
There is, of course, a regulatory burden. There is, of course, a balance around how much and what regulation is appropriate. You make a weirdly sweeping statement about politicians at a time when the official opposition party is constantly going on about cutting regulation and the Government is explicitly seeking to cut regulation.
That all notwithstanding, the ASI coming up with bogus figures for who is reliant on the state for their income isn't advancing a sensible discussion on regulation, is it?
I have, personally, dealt with regulation in construction and banking.
It’s been piled on without any apparent interest in effectiveness, results and even safety (collecting confidential information creates a risk that must be mitigated)
Because of its uselessness, it conceals real problems. So domestic construction projects have doorstop tomes, listing risks and mitigations. On page 1027 onward. Which are ignored, because no one is going to mine 2k pages on a site for safety info.
So real people get hurt. I know lots are immigrants. But I like to think of them as humans. Bit of a foible of mine.
SCOOP: Hooded ICE agents snatched Indian-born Georgetown postdoc Badar Suri from Rosslyn street Monday, per court filing. Like Khalil, linked to pro-Palestinian views & Rubio 'foreign policy' power, lawyer says. Then whisked to Louisiana.
The Prince of Wales has arrived in Estonia for a two-day visit to thank the country for its support of Ukraine, highlight bi-lateral relations with the UK and meet @MercianRegiment troops on NATO manoeuvres here. William is starting the visit meeting President @AlarKaris
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
In economics, there is a long running categorisation of activity as “Socialised” when it is indirectly controlled by the Government. Regulatory burden is a classic for this.
Given the habit of government creating regulatory burdens, this simply makes sense.
There are jobs that are indirectly controlled by government, but these jobs aren't generally that. You need HR personnel if you have lots of employees. You need someone to manage job adverts, onboarding, holiday requests, sick leave etc., irrespective of government regulation. The ASI are just inflating figures for shock value.
The regulatory burden is real. And if it is not counted, the politicians will carry on adding to it, without regard for consequences.
While that is true, most regulations have been introduced as a response to a tragedy or public pressure to resolve something. Simply scrapping them without thought doesn't really help and will likely result in more regulation again in the future.
Take the Building Safety Act in response to Grenfell. Yes, you could scrap the bureaucracy but if you don't replace the measures with something else, or some action, then you are at risk of another Grenfell.
Scrapping things without thought or concern for the consequence is the DOGE approach and is already being found out as being stupid.
Is Grenfell a good example? Surely the regulatory burden on those involved in construction and works there was immense. But where needed it was overlooked, falsified or ignored.
No amount of law can overcome an amoral culture, nor can it overcome a ruthless competitiveness which requires the corner cutting to survive.
Tesla is recalling 46,096 Cybertruck vehicles in the US over an exterior panel that can detach while driving, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said reut.rs/4bHXpnS
(my usual funny signoff or emoji has been deleted because I'm sick of this shit. These things are not funny. Burning people alive in a stainless steel mobile oven is not funny. The conversion of the United States to an autocratic playground for tech billionaires to torment people as they see fit is not funny. The forced delivery of the Ukrainians to their murderers, rapists and kidnappers of their children is not funny. PB is not as much fun as it used to be.)
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
I don't know the veracity of the story, but if we had a project cancelled then we would absolutely delete the data. Carrying sensitive data poses risks to the participants (and the institution). If the research has been cancelled then the benefits (research outputs) that justify those risks are gone and we'd securely delete the data ASAP.
Isn't there a GDPR duty to do so? I know that's not the US, but it illustrates the point.
Indeed, here. If the study is canned, the legal basis evaporates if relying on one of the non-consent bases. If consented, that's also gone if the study for which the consent exists no longer exists (may be some legal wriggle room on that if the consent allowed for archiving after study end, but in reality the institution would want the data gone asap)
In the study in question, you’d have a requirement to hold confidential data, data from national security sources and a requirement to do everything to the grade of legal evidence.
That would involve secured offices, access etc.
The data quite definitely wouldn’t be available for keeping a spare copy.
One coming down the track - Trump reportedly having databases recording war crimes in Ukraine, including that related to thousands of children abducted to Russia, deleted, as he withdraws funding to the project.
The detail is not absolutely clear yet, and Trump / Musk will obfuscate. I hope Yale University had their data backed up in a safe jurisdiction.
I'd say it's exactly the sort of promise he may have quietly made to Putin, given that he launched his assault on the ICC on day one.
That story has malicious compliance, obfuscation and lies written all over it. How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data? Did the data even exist in the first place?
An unidentified source familiar with the tracking program told Reuters that DOGE's cutting funding for the program has resulted in the deletion of $26 million of war crimes evidence protecting Putin. They said, "They took $26 million of U.S. taxpayers money used for war crimes data and threw it into the woodchipper, including the dossiers on all the children. If you wanted to protect President Putin from prosecution, you nuke that thing. And they did it. It's the final court-admissible version with all the metadata."
"How can cutting funding for something 'result' in the deletion of data?"
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
Failing to maintain something is not the same as actively deleting it: "Oh, we're no longer getting $26m from the government. I guess we'll just have to delete the database!"
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
I don't know the veracity of the story, but if we had a project cancelled then we would absolutely delete the data. Carrying sensitive data poses risks to the participants (and the institution). If the research has been cancelled then the benefits (research outputs) that justify those risks are gone and we'd securely delete the data ASAP.
Isn't there a GDPR duty to do so? I know that's not the US, but it illustrates the point.
Indeed, here. If the study is canned, the legal basis evaporates if relying on one of the non-consent bases. If consented, that's also gone if the study for which the consent exists no longer exists (may be some legal wriggle room on that if the consent allowed for archiving after study end, but in reality the institution would want the data gone asap)
In this case they were supposedly collecting open source data, and it would be hard for them to obtain consent.
Comments
And confirmed by the levels of unemployment by constituency:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8748/CBP-8748.pdf
Do you really think the over 9k unemployed in Tottenham or the more than 8k unemployed in both East Ham and West Ham is explainable by students at UCL or the LSE ?
What we have in parts of London, and likewise in inner city Birmingham and Bradford, are high levels of structural unemployment.
(I made a mistake earlier when I said "structural" unemployment. I meant frictional unemployment).
As I say, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a case of mistaken identity. Without doxxing Mrs U, she fits in exactly the same bucket as his guy. There was no media outrage when she got detained. It happens all the time with US immigration officials.
Re the stories of US immigration....I can do the same the media is doing.
Leading Travel YouTuber detained at US airport and deported. Immigration officials raised concerns about his social media postings. The YouTuber claims he doesn't know the real reason for his deportation, is a regular visitor to the US and has no criminal convictions.
True story...under Biden. Simon Wilson is a guy on YouTube with several million followers and was banned from entry to the US for I think 3 years. It appears when they finally got to the bottom of it with legal representation, some immigration official didn't like the fact he had travelled to a couple of "high risk" countries.
Quite easy really: you don't archive it. Data from a ceased project is either properly archived, left in place on an active server, or deleted as no longer required or destroyed when ordered or the computer it is on/cloud it is in overwrites it. There were cases in the Global War On Terror when servers/drives/whatever were flown back with gigabytes of data and never inspected nor stored properly. In my previous incarnation I once scraped unstructured data off a server header and reimposed a schema to resurrect it before the 28-day rolling-archive limit was reached, thereby rescuing deleted data that would otherwise be lost.
The question is not whether Trump and Musk's Jahr Null approach deletes data, the question is why you would be surprised by it.
As for those who are unemployed, some might very well be claiming while working in the black economy. As for others, we know there are a core of people who would rather be unemployed and claiming than work. We also know unemployment rates among those with disabilities are much higher than among the able bodied.
I’d also add there are no doubt people who don’t work and who don’t claim either and live within their community subsisting on cash-in-hand work.
The story is a hoax and casts doubt on whether the funding was being used appropriately in the first place.
It's important not to fall into the trap of using statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.
Hope all PB readers enjoy the Spring and Summer.
Your shilling for Trump used to be amusing in parts but now that he is facilitating the death of Ukrainians your spin is shameful as it is disgusting.
Speaking at a daily press briefing, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said suggestions that data was deleted were false.
"The data exists," Bruce said. "It was not in the State Department's control. It was the people running that framework, but we know who is running the data and the website, and we know fully that the data exists and it's not been deleted and it's not missing."
BBC News - Who are the millions of Britons not working, and why? - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52660591
At top line:
2.4m students
1.4m unemployed
2.6m sick
1.7m carers (overwhelmingly women)
1.2m retired
1.0m inactive but none of the above
https://www.adamsmith.org/press-releases/over-half-of-brits-reliant-on-state-for-their-income
In the case of USAID, they started vacating the building.
Why on earth would such data not exist? What a bizarre question.
Remember the hassle getting (variously) the US, Germany, and Switzerland to agree to the use of various bits of kit in Ukraine ?
Of course there's a lot more cash outside of the 150bn EU fund to be spent - but it's not unlikely that similar (though not formal) considerations might apply,
"Economically inactive
People who are neither in employment nor unemployed. This group includes, for example, all those who were looking after a home or retired.
Wanting a job
People not in employment who want a job but are not classed as unemployed because they have either not sought work in the last four weeks or are not available to start work.
Not wanting a job
People who are neither in employment nor unemployed and who do not want a job."
27% of them are students - which, since the headline number is 16-64 includes all those aged 16-18 who, by law, now have to be in some form of education.
18% of them are housewives/househusbands.
11% of them are retired
11% of them are other - including those who do not need to work due to independent wealth.
So the claim of 9 million economically inactive -implying as it does those who should be in work but are not - is misleading in the extreme.
I'm really making a modest complaint about on our lazy, shitty, amateurish media being ... lazy, shitty and amaterish. It's the default.
It's like if you want attention for a protest you make sure it is within 2 hours of Central London, so the journos can get there, get a story, get back, file it, and be down the Wine Bar by the close of working hours.
The same lesson that the Aldermaston Anti-Nuclear marchers learnt between 1958 when they started in London and went to Aldermaston, and 1959 and onwards, when they did it in the other direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldermaston_Marches
I think you are a long way down the rabbit hole.
This has been calculated by looking at the number of people who are either:
receiving the state pension
receiving universal credit, including unemployed people;
Higher Education students;
employed by a Higher Education institution;
public sector employees.
The ASI also took the number of employees in human resources and the planning sector into account. This is because the ever-expanding reach of the state has been the primary driver of the growth of these roles. These professions enable businesses to navigate the huge regulatory burdens that the state has placed on them.
Some of those, sure, fit an obvious definition of "reliant on the state for their livelihood", like public sector employees. However, some of them are more questionable. Lots of people who receive the state pension get more from a private pension: they are not reliant on the state, necessarily.
Higher education students may be funded by the state, but many are not. Most undergrads are reliant on state-backed loans and/or family support. Many work part-time. Lots of postgrads are paying themselves or supported by an employer.
I'm employed by a higher education institution. I generate income for my employer in many ways: some of me is supported by government grants, but an increasingly high proportion of me is supported by fee income, and that fee income is increasingly from overseas students. Some of my colleagues are entirely paid for by overseas student fees, so they are being supported by middle class families in China.
But the egregious category there is "employees in human resources and the planning sector into account". That's just making stuff up. Those are private sector employees. That the private sector has to obey laws does not make those jobs reliant on the state for their incomes.
I quite like this bit from the BBC story:
"He also played the drums in a band called Eddie & The Robbers, a nod to his reputation as a colourful businessman."
A line which probably went as far as the BBC's lawyers were willing to go. I wonder if some of the stories about Eddie are going to come out now?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/cq8y1335qlwo
You seem to be under the curious misconception that DOGE is just a harmless attempt to reduce 'waste'. It isn't. It's ideological. In fact, it's far mor ideological than either DEI or woke. And far, far worse.
This EU funding arrangement is half baked and probably needs to be rethought. Hopefully it will be.
Isn’t the figure a reflection of London based residents rather than London economic activity ?
Given the habit of government creating regulatory burdens, this simply makes sense.
Where, for example, does "quadriplegic" fit in?
People who get £££ on child-care subsidy are not included as "dependent on the state" for example, despite them being able to get the best part of £20k per annum for 2 children, and so on.
The objective is to set up groups they like as OK, and define groups they do not like as Not OK.
So the choice will be EU or US. Right now EU looks a lot more reliable to me.
It was pure contingency that Oswald found a job at the Texas Book Depository, pure contingency that he was assigned to work at the warehouse itself, pure contingency that Kennedy decided to take the route through Dealey Plaza, and pure contingency that Kennedy decided to travel with the hood down.
While Oswald’s back history is very odd, that’s perhaps no surprise for someone who ended up assassinating a President (and who had attempted to shoot at a right wing politician a few months earlier).
The autopsy and Jack Ruby killing are also weird, but their weirdness do not undermine the aforementioned facts that underpin the case for Oswald.
[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.
At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRyXhfu_ZUE (7 mins)
To date, the EU has signed six such partnerships – with (by date of signature) Norway, Moldova, South Korea, Japan, Albania and North Macedonia, and more are envisaged.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2025)767215
We'll follow once the French have stopped waving their hands on this particular thing. The fishing link, if it exists, is absurd.
But we need access back to some things we were excluded from at Brexit, such as the satellite location setup. Mr S has some work to do.
Bloody gorgeous in London today.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/03/chatgpt-falsely-claimed-a-dad-murdered-his-own-kids-complaint-says/
There will be many more of these hallucinations; the companies responsible (*) should have clear ways of 'fixing' the data and of recompensing the affected. But as the article shows, that isn't easy...
(*) Actually, who are showing a lack of responsibility...
That all notwithstanding, the ASI coming up with bogus figures for who is reliant on the state for their income isn't advancing a sensible discussion on regulation, is it?
Take the Building Safety Act in response to Grenfell. Yes, you could scrap the bureaucracy but if you don't replace the measures with something else, or some action, then you are at risk of another Grenfell.
Scrapping things without thought or concern for the consequence is the DOGE approach and is already being found out as being stupid.
And yet, even *that* statute, which has never been used, requires judicial review...
It’s striking to contrast the review that statute specifically requires with the Trump administration's arguments that it can summarily remove (with no judicial review whatsoever) anyone it simply claims to be a Venezuelan member of Tren de Aragua:
https://law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-V.
https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1902354532258001266
Deltapoll has Con 25%, Labour 25%, Reform 23%, Lib Dem 11%.
The forced choice has Con 35%, Lab 35%.
Tesla is recalling 46,096 Cybertruck vehicles in the US over an exterior panel that can detach while driving, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said reut.rs/4bHXpnS
I don't really think about London but if you mention the flow of money the first thing that comes to mind is treasury infrastructure investment.
And don't make me come up with a list, you won't like it.
Incidentally, I was 8, nearly 9 on the Friday it happened and it is one of my earliest political memories. I remember a TV programme being interrupted with news flashes (Emergency Ward 10), the American boy at my London primary school school reading the lesson (Ecclesiastes) at assembly the Monday after, my older brother giving me gory details of the photo in the Daily Mirror (I was not allowed to see it) of Jack Ruby's bullet entering LHO.
It’s been piled on without any apparent interest in effectiveness, results and even safety (collecting confidential information creates a risk that must be mitigated)
Because of its uselessness, it conceals real problems. So domestic construction projects have doorstop tomes, listing risks and mitigations. On page 1027 onward. Which are ignored, because no one is going to mine 2k pages on a site for safety info.
So real people get hurt. I know lots are immigrants. But I like to think of them as humans. Bit of a foible of mine.
SCOOP: Hooded ICE agents snatched Indian-born Georgetown postdoc Badar Suri from Rosslyn street Monday, per court filing. Like Khalil, linked to pro-Palestinian views & Rubio 'foreign policy' power, lawyer says. Then whisked to Louisiana.
@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Oh wow, they invoked the “Rubio gets to declare you deportable” foreign policy law seemingly because of who a guy’s U.S. citizen wife was.
The Prince of Wales has arrived in Estonia for a two-day visit to thank the country for its support of Ukraine, highlight bi-lateral relations with the UK and meet
@MercianRegiment
troops on NATO manoeuvres here. William is starting the visit meeting President
@AlarKaris
https://x.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1902700148855066717
No amount of law can overcome an amoral culture, nor can it overcome a ruthless competitiveness which requires the corner cutting to survive.
A case of Gresham's law.
Oopsie.(my usual funny signoff or emoji has been deleted because I'm sick of this shit. These things are not funny. Burning people alive in a stainless steel mobile oven is not funny. The conversion of the United States to an autocratic playground for tech billionaires to torment people as they see fit is not funny. The forced delivery of the Ukrainians to their murderers, rapists and kidnappers of their children is not funny. PB is not as much fun as it used to be.)
That would involve secured offices, access etc.
The data quite definitely wouldn’t be available for keeping a spare copy.